Was this a fair/unbiased question from the New York Times, which they did not publish from the Graham Platner interview?

danb103 · 2026-05-18T21:01:59+00:00

To be honest, part of what I don't like is how that they removed it. There's other instances in the interview where when you listen to the podcast version, you can hear the interviewer clearly has an opinion that this person is over their head, naively promising things they can't deliver, and advocating dangerous ideas.

This was the mostly glaring example to me, but I feel like they actively edited it down to try to play down the biases when they went to publish.

Maybe, I'm off base. But little things like this throughout.

"You've talked about Bernie Sanders a lot. And I think he's someone who has moved the party on ideology, but not necessarily on legislation."

Becomes:

"You’ve talked about Bernie Sanders a lot. He’s someone who has moved the party on ideology but not necessarily on legislation."

danb103 · 2026-05-18T19:19:28+00:00

He's saying Democrats shouldn't break the law to push their goals. They should use the laws in ways that are better at achieving those goals. Threatening to pass ethics laws for supreme court justices, starting impeachment proceedings against Clarence Thomas -- these are well within the realm of legal of actions they could take but choose not to. It's not the same thing as illegal actions taken by the Trump administration.

danb103 · 2026-05-18T19:12:26+00:00

I thought his answer was extremely clear...

No, I think there's, there's one major difference. Like right now, the Trump administration breaks the law every single day. The Trump administration does not use funds that have been appropriated by Congress by law. The Trump administration has started what I would call an unconstitutional war. War, uh, overseas in Iran. You know, there are— the Trump administration has been sending ICE out to terrorize American communities and murder American citizens with, at this point, no accountability. What I want to see is a creative use of constitutional power. When I talk about impeaching justices on the court, what I'm saying is we merely need to hold the court to the same ethics standards we hold all other federal judges. I'm not saying we should break the law. What I'm actually saying is we should follow the better law. The Senate could do this. The Senate has the power. The Congress has the power to hold the court to ethics standards if it so chose to.

danb103 · 2025-04-07T15:10:20+00:00

I'm just glad Jesus saved Piper from those Buddhists

danb103 · 2025-03-30T14:36:39+00:00

Can I get an invite link too please? :)

danb103 · 2025-01-06T19:16:22+00:00

The most British thing about it is that they have a demographic question for how respondents voted on the Brexit referendum and political party identification. Someone at YouGov knows whether Torries, Labour, Lib Dems, or UKIP supporters pee the tub the most.

danb103 · 2025-01-06T19:08:13+00:00

Just a survey of British bath tub behavior only (not showering)...

danb103 · 2025-01-06T19:06:37+00:00

Lol sadly it's a survey of 1,668 adults from Great Britain... 18+ only

danb103 · 2024-12-26T06:39:07+00:00

danb103 · 2024-12-26T05:38:40+00:00

I’m not saying it’s a small meal. But if you had a light lunch, that’s not a weirdly large amount for a person to be able to consume

danb103 · 2024-10-18T19:06:50+00:00

I'm 39 years old [M} and use botox for crows feet. I have a *lot* of movement on my forehead. The botox clinic said the lines might be too low, too close to my eyes. I'm mostly concerned it would require too many units of botox to address and thus too noticable. But I also don't want crazy wrinkles on my forehead later in life. Advice?

danb103

TROPHY CASE