4 ms·
If you want a non-partisan debate, which I do, I think you have to look past this kind of 'who was worse' debate. Even if there is an answer to 'who was worse'
by jimmytidey 9y ago
If you want a non-partisan debate, which I do, I think you have to look past this kind of 'who was worse' debate.
Even if there is an answer to 'who was worse', trying to reach a conclusion will just descend into meaningless point scoring.
So, rather than saying that there is or isn't hypocrisy, I guess it would have been better for me to say that I don't care.
- chimeracoder 9y ago> If you want a non-partisan debate, which I do, I think you have to look past this kind of 'who was worse' debate. You can have a "non-partisan" debate while recognizing that there's an important distinction between applying data to disseminate information in good faith to potential voters and applying data to intentionally disseminate misinformation in concert with a foreign government.
- tatersolid 9y agoYour typical Democrat enthusiast considers the entire Republican platform “disininformation”. And vice versa. That’s truly the root of the problem here: none of the “fanatics” who control the various political organizations on left or the right actually want informed debate. They want to censor the other side entirely.