Winning the interview

It’s illegal for them to not do what helps their shareholders.

This has been repeatedly shown false. They have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, not a legal one. As Tim Apple once told an investor asking about gains on their push for environmental greenness as a company, he told them that if all they want is for the number to go up they should get out of the stock.

Cook then offered his own bottom line to Danhof, or any other critic, one which perfectly sums up his belief that social and political and moral leadership are not antithetical to running a business. “If that’s a hard line for you,” Cook continued, “then you should get out of the stock.”

https://alearningaday.blog/2016/03/12/tim-cook-on-roi

They ARE services. They're not services run for the benefit of the public.

I think we all got a little messed up by the few years that journalism had a bit of credibility. For the vast vast vast majority of humans on earth all forms of mass communication have been propaganda for those in power.. I mean look at the Catholic Church for the best modern example

Yea it's now an election of the old school vs new school and the passing of the torch. Boomers are going down kicking and screaming

People love it when you lose. Give us dirty laundry.

Lol, name the last Republican President that wasn't a moron.

I don't agree. A scale has to be useful for separating what you're measuring. Any scale that puts Kamala as "low" is like trying to measure the size of a banana and an orange in kilometers, they'll both measure "low". There is no decent measure by which Trump is anything but scum. Kamala (or just about anyone who isn't a Trump voter) ranks so far above Trump that they can't be anything under "excellent" on a scale designed to meaningfully compare these candidates.

Obviously the scale we should be using for our politicians SHOULD be better, and that's because we should have produced better candidates. With the candidates we have, we don't get to use a better scale because in doing so we'll be playing right into Republican narrative of "they're both the same" or Kamala is "low" quality so vote for Trump.

Well, Trump did make a ton of people madly follow him.
It may be leading the world to ruin, but it is still leading.

I'd put the impact rating as "high".
The direction being undesirable.

Fox news. Daily beast. Daily Mail. etc. The usual suspects. But no matter what she said or did, they were going to bash her. If she were the 2nd coming they would say she was a "trans ultra-left authoritarian".

It's fucking absurd and embarrassing that crowd participation is even permitted in televised presidential debates.

This is the folly of representative democracy. It inevitably becomes less about policy and instead a popularity contest between figureheads.

Representative democracy has run its course, and the problems it solved (the fact that it's not practical for everyone to attend places of government from far away) have all but been solved by technology. Bring on direct democracy.

The media is owned by old white conservative men who would prefer fascism over more taxes.

The 'liberal media' is a lie

Yeah idk why you're getting downvoted, that was one of the most disappointing parts of it.

She could have tried to wriggle around it a bit more rhetorically but she just went "I'll bang my head against the wall with Israel just like we've been doing till now."

In general it was a pretty bad showing from Harris, and Walz did only a bit better.

how so? I see nothing to indicate that she shifted right, just that her campaign is pushing for the moderate voters, both on dem and republican sides, which is absolutely a good strategy.

With ABC?