3 ms·
> In terms of accuracy, you'd walk away from 2016 far less confused about the world reading Breitbart than the NYT. No, you'd walk away much more angry about a
by orf 10y ago
> In terms of accuracy, you'd walk away from 2016 far less confused about the world reading Breitbart than the NYT.
No, you'd walk away much more angry about all kinds of things, including Hillary's satanic rituals and pizza parlour pedophile ring, but still be very confused.
Baring one thing. Who your next president is. And who says that's not due to a lot of very confused people?
- mistermann 10y agoSerious question: Do you read Breitbart, do you know this to be true? I mean, I think it's fairly safe to assume it's a bit of a rag, but wondering if that actually goes beyond the typical conservative "slant" and well into knowingly presenting fake news as fact as you seem to be saying.
- dinkumthinkum 10y agoOh yes, I read, and I read what Bannon himself says is the most important part, which are the comments and both go into the pile as, at best, disgusting and ignorant racist drivel and more accurately as smug inane rantings.
- mistermann 10y agoWould you have any examples of that? Sorry I don't know much about Breitbart. "Racism" has kind of lost its meaning nowadays.