BMTea @ BMTea @lemmy.world

Posts

7

Comments

331

Joined

10 mo. ago

I could have told you that a week after it happened. One of the most bizarrely overblown events I've ever seen. The attempt to turn bloodsucking legislators who were heckled and trolled by some hooting red state morons in to America's Beer Hall Putsch was DOA. Only hyperpartisan #resist Dem voters obsessed over it. A nation that celebrates a healthcare CEO getting assassinated Hitman-style aren't going to gasp and faint because Nancy Pelosi's desk was vandalized and some security guard had a heart attack.

I don't get why it is relevant. Energy is cheap and abundant today almkst everywhere that isn't sanctioned or a warzone.

Sorry but the German people and not Schroder were the ones who chose anti-nuclear. And the reliance on Russian gas may have backfired, but at the time it enabled perhaps the most efficient economy Europe had ever known.

I didn't say it was justified because of politicians, just that it wasn't a crazy position

Actually it was crazy to everyone who didn't exist in the bubble of US and UK elites that The Economists coexists in. Way to prove my point again.

but it's pretty darned weak

It's "darned weak" for me to point out that The Economist is biased in the exact way you keep revealing yourself to be lol? Who could've questioned the Iraq War, I mean it only inspired the biggest single day global protest in human history!

Admit you were caught with your pants down, that you insisted on outsourcing indepedent or critical engagement with press to a subjective barometer website and that your particular range of political and historical knowledge is quite limited and should be expanded.

We can move on to my opinions on the Economist's Gaza coverage once you explain why you believe their coverage of whether the U.S government should invade Iraq was justified by the U.S government's decision to invade Iraq. You seem quite desperate to move on from this argument because it's inexcusable and proves my point.

Americans are terrified of Trump, which is understandable, but they then demand that a free pass be given to his opponents, up to and including their acts of genocide.

Been that way since Obama. Turns out they aren't "our side", they're the party of conservativism, neoconservativism and just happy to rely on minority votes and therefore focus on minority rights.

You can go ahead and justify your bizarre politician argument before you jump to another topic.

Big difference between a paper (ime FT, Guardian, Independent) and a rag. Those two aren't really on my radar.

Why the hell would you bring up the decision of the US government to illegally invade Iraq as an excuse for a British newspaper endorsing and calling for that invasion and promising it would be a boon to the Iraqi people? Is "Of course the Economist supports whatever Washington decides" is your argument for their being unbiased?

I can reach back to literally today with their Gaza coverage. And no, "most" politicians didn't back it - this is exactly where you're falling short. I'm not British or American. An overwhelming majority of politicians in my nation and even my continent thought it was a criminal endeavor. Yet to you, that bias is baked into your national politics - "of course they supported it, everyone did!" I'm supposed to stake their credibility on how much they conform with the opinions of the British government? LOL! And exactly why I find your approach and trust in that website silly.

Oh, the mods at c/politics! Let's do a quick census on how many of them are Russian, African, Asian, can read news in more than one language etc.

Thanks to that website, I no longer need independent thought or skepticism. So long as a website reports technical facts, I can't dislike their editorial decisions, range of opinions or their record of fuck-ups like becoming advocates for the invasion or Iraq. I will defer to the "unbiased" label slapped onto them subjectively by a website not necessarily ran by someone who can even read non-English language news from around the world or who uses a benchmark of bias that is partocular to their national, ideological and cultural context, which is likely very different from mine. Thanks!

They are the worst British paper. Besides the BBC, which is essentially subtle state propaganda.

Every time I look up a topic I get a Google ad from them and the headline always something not-so-subtly pointing to their ulterior motives.

It is slowing down. Whether we should be thankful or concerned depends basically on your views on climate change.

Better than every president after him except maybe first 2 years of Obama.

The article opens up talking about NAFTA, so at least it's starting from the right angle: policy and international forces.

No. The domestic labor growth is lower than the demand, so the demand is met with the foreign workers necessary.

Exactly what I'm trying to argue. It's also a strange issue on the left where progressivism in the form of increased job security and regressivism in the form of nativist immigration policy clash.