Hardkill

I found this to be a good video on why a lot of good policies have been prevented from being enacted in this country in contemporary times:

I agree with all that. So, if only about a quarter of Americans are in those right-wing echo chambers, then what about the other twenty something percent of Americans who aren't in those right-wing echo chambers but still voted for Trump for in 2016 and 2020?

I strongly disagree. One way or another we have to rebuild that New Deal coalition.

Yeah, so if that's the case, then that begs the question as to how our fractured media environment country has caused our country to become more divided than ever before.

According to Pew Research Center surveys: In 1964, 75% of rural Americans trusted the federal government to do what is right "most of the time" or "just about always." By 2019, that number had dropped to 33%. This decline in trust is attributed to various factors, including: Perceived government overreach Bureaucratic inefficiencies Unfulfilled promises Changing economic and social landscape Polarized politics Right-wing propaganda fueling erosion of trust in government To reestablish trust, it's essential to: Listen to rural concerns Deliver on promises Improve government efficiency Address rural-urban disparities Foster transparency and accountability progressive propaganda that reframes government as a force for good.

What do you think about the fact that only about 25% of Americans are stuck in some kind of right-wing echo chamber?

I love it when Trump supporters get triggered!

Centrism and conservatism do share some similarities in their approach to the status quo. Centrism and the status quo: Centrism often involves: Accepting the current state: Centrists tend to accept the existing political, social, and economic order as a starting point. Incremental adjustments: They seek to make gradual, pragmatic adjustments to the status quo rather than advocating for radical changes. Pragmatic compromises: Centrists often prioritize finding common ground and compromising to maintain stability and avoid disruption. Conservatism and the status quo: Conservatism involves: Preserving the existing order: Conservatives aim to preserve and protect the existing social, political, and economic order. Resisting significant changes: They tend to be cautious about making significant changes to the status quo, fearing unintended consequences. Emphasis on tradition: Conservatives often prioritize maintaining traditional institutions, values, and practices. While both centrism and conservatism involve working within the existing framework, the key difference lies in their motivations and approaches: Centrism seeks to make pragmatic adjustments to the status quo to address current issues and find common ground. Conservatism aims to preserve and protect the existing order, often due to a belief in its inherent value or fear of change. In summary, centrism and conservatism share some similarities in their approach to the status quo, but centrism tends to be more open to gradual adjustments, while conservatism prioritizes preservation and tradition. Then again, conservatism at times involves going backwards on social and economic issues. Any thoughts on this?

I just realized something. Most Americans don't regularly follow politics or watch the news. They say that only about 15% of people in America have made a habit of following and listening to good quality new sources and only about 25% of American people follow fox news and/or other right-wing political commentary shows regularly. Therefore, if most people haven't been actively seeking out news, including right-wing sources, then how can this toxic media environment we've been in for several years have contributed to such widespread polarization? How has it caused almost half of the country to be stuck in an echo chamber or epistemic bubble?

So, what I am getting from some of you here is that even with certain people who don't follow the right-wing media regularly will eventually hear about from some other way, like the ways you mentioned above such as word-of-mouth and social networks, local and regional media, cultural resonance, demographic targeting, etc. Also, I will say that right-wing talking points and framing often get picked up by mainstream media, amplifying their reach and legitimizing their views. Moreover, in some areas or communities, conservative voices may dominate the discourse, leaving little room for alternative perspectives.

FWIW for now:

Why would a significant number of decided voters change their minds about who to vote for, especially in this day and age when the political climate has become more polarized and calcified than ever before since the antebellum of the Civil War.

I hope you're right. However, it's still mind blowing how many undecided people who watched that debate were still undecided. As pessimistic as this may sound, my dad says that he think thats those people who watched the debate and are still having trouble deciding between a psychotic evil old bastard and an inspiring colored woman in her prime who is so eminently qualified for the job of the presidency, means that they probably are still too racist, too sexist, and too backwards to vote for her. I hope my dad is proven wrong.

If it doesn't move a significant amount of likely voters, then I wouldn't be surprised. Debates have very, very rarely made any difference in the outcome of any presidential election. Biden dropping out after his poor debate performance was an anomaly in US History.

That’s also what I was alluding to.

That’s valid point. Harris did fantastic last night, but I am somewhat disappointed that she didn’t get way more than 63% of people who watched it to think that she won the debate according to the CNN poll. When Hillary Clinton won her first debate against Trump in 2016, she also convinced about 63% of voters who watched it to think that she won that debate according to a CNN poll back then. Trump back then wasn’t nearly as bad at debating as he has been this time around.

Even though I've been finding TYT to be more and more obnoxious Cenk did make a very important point here in this vid about how conservative media for decades has been working the referee by accusing mainstream media of liberal bias. Moreover, this strategy has successfully led to mainstream outlets giving undue attention to misinformation and conspiracy theories: The Majority Report did a job of pointing out how much Megyn Kelly gaslit her viewers on why Trump lost the Trump debate:

May he rest in peace. He was a uniquely talented actor.

A (former) prosecutor vs a criminal

Can you imagine how much worse he would've done without a muted microphone?

Harris destroyed Trump in that debate!

The Fairness Doctrine used to enforce diverse views point on every news channel and on every political outlet before it got repealed in the late 1980s. It also prevented the emergence of political media echo chambers or epistemic bubbles. I wish the government could somehow bring some version of that back.

Well, this is very depressing. One of my greatest fears is that the people and the government may not be able to stop the rich and big corporations from taking over our entire country before it's too late. I mean I don't think that's going to happen, but the possibility of that happening just went up a lot in my mind now.

Campaign finance reform has been a mainstream issue for decades, with various efforts and proposals aimed at addressing the influence of money in politics. Yet, I don't see any real progress having been made on this issue at all, even after Bernie Sanders and the progressive movement began to rise to prominence in 2016. Also, what happened to Wolf-PAC?

So, then what has been the point of Wolf-Pac and all of this big talk about how we need to get money out politics?