I didn't say that. I just thought the behavior of the supposed newscasters was appalling. They could have just reported the facts and let the people watching decide what they think and feel about the information.
We are, somewhat. Thanks for pointing that out. But, I still disagree with you about the influence of social media on public opinion. Still, I misunderstood your first post.
Dude, we can SEE the bots on Twitter.
You know what is appalling? What that buffoon has done to democracy. What he has chosen to do to children, those who are in unfortunate circumstances, those with very little. You know what fucking turns my stomach? That voters and Republican politicians in this fucking country will sit by and wring their pearls over "fake news" instead of choosing to do right by fucking humans in need.
So why isn't it appalling that the supposed left leaning network has someone shilling for the fascist? Can't both things be wrong?
When I have time I'll look for another take on that story, I couldn't get too far into that one without being inundated by pro-Dump ads and pleas "to help save conservative journalism". I think the author of that article might be a tiny bit biased.
This was an interesting take. I've been trying to assemble an answer to a question posed by Innula Zenovka and I can't. You know you wanna try to keep your duckies in a row when you talk to Innula
. I dread anything Russia being introduced into this primary. It's a nuclear distraction. I just want to snuff it out. The most important thing is knowing your goal and achieving it fairly to the best of your abilities. Anyone who is trying to lie, take advantage, steal, and manipulate you to hurt yourself for their own interests, is a bad actor. They're people. Giving them evil superpowers is giving your own power away. Same goes for Trump.
Please clarify "Russia being introduced into this primary". Do you mean in discussion? Because if they're there (and they almost certainly are), ignoring the fact helps no one. They are one of several elephants in the room. But there's destructive discussion and constructive discussion. The latter is needed on everything.This was an interesting take. I've been trying to assemble an answer to a question posed by Innula Zenovka and I can't. You know you wanna try to keep your duckies in a row when you talk to Innula
Yea, I kind of think talking about their influence at this point is fruitless. If, out of the blue, we open a "Russian influence" dialog about a specific candidate in major media outlets on the day before an important election event, then it's not really the Russian influence that's influencing opinion nearly as much as the person talking about it. Talking about Russian influence for 3 1/2 years hasn't changed anything. It's been a circular firing squad.
I have to disagree. This situation is different.
The problem is that when the leading candidate says, unprompted, he was told about a month previously by "US officials" (I assume they were speaking in an official capacity) that Russia has been trying to influence the campaign on his behalf, it's a bit difficult to ignore it, even though there's apparently no evidence to support the claim.
Oh God, Innula, you're gonna make me have to research this. You're correct.
Maybe someone did tell him that.Oh God, Innula, you're gonna make me have to research this. You're correct.
Apologies to you, Dakota, Romana, and all of the victims of my ignorance. It's completely fair game for discussion. He's inviting it.
I don't understand his motivations for doing this, but I'm not winning any campaign either.
So one more time, I'm 100% off base about a topic that is ripe for discussion.
I'm going to go sulk in the WRONG CORNER for awhile and punish myself by going to WalMart.
It wasn't "unprompted," it was in response to a question from a reporter. I saw a snippet of the the interview and saw the question being asked.
