3 ms·
If the roles were reversed, the story would be on the lead story of every major left-leaning media outlet (which is all of them except Fox) in the nation for da
by adventured 6y ago
If the roles were reversed, the story would be on the lead story of every major left-leaning media outlet (which is all of them except Fox) in the nation for days: CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, USA Today, Reuters, AP; all of them would carry it non-stop and beat it to death, covering every possible aspect and angle. Which is what they do any time there has been a hint of a story against Trump in the past four years.
Since the roles are not reversed, they're working together to bury it and trying to pretend it doesn't exist, because they're con-artists and fake journalists completely in bed with the Democrats and very willing to conspire to throw an election and commit election interference.
The barely existent election interference by the Russians is trivial compared to what big tech is doing out in the open (hell, they're practically bragging about it at this point it's so brazen).
Several executives at big tech need to be put in prison for election interference. Start with Dorsey.
- CamperBob2 6y agoSince the roles are not reversed, they're working together to bury it and trying to pretend it doesn't exist, because they're con-artists Yeah, I remember when the editor-in-chief at WaPo settled a Federal suit for $20M to avoid facing charges for his role in running a fraudulent university. Good times. Then there was the NYT board member whose namesake cancer charity foundation was shut down by the state attorney general's office because it turned out to be a front for his own business and political interests. What a con artist, huh. Not to forget the time the chairman of the Democratic National Committee stiffed his contractors for $70 million on a casino project that later went bankrupt. There oughta be a law.
- Wolfenstein98k 6y agoAd hominem. Trump may be awful, but that has no bearing on the argument you're responding to.
- CamperBob2 6y agoI especially like how I'm guilty of an ad-hominem fallacy, while the person calling their opponents "con artists" while citing no evidence whatsoever wasn't. Re-examine your own biases, then post.
- Wolfenstein98k 6y agoName-calling isn't ad hom. Poster didn't say "they are con artists", they said "they are doing this and this, because they are con artists". Your response was tu quoque mixed with ad hom: "oh yeah? Well the other guy is a bad person!"
- CamperBob2 6y agoThere is such a thing as moral authority, you know. Look around you. Does it look like you're sitting in a philosophy classroom? (If it does, take the opportunity to freshen up on your Kierkegaard.)
- Wolfenstein98k 6y agoI'm simply pointing out your argument was cognitive dissonance and completely ineffective. I'm sure you could engage with it directly and without fallacy, you're obviously bright, but your replies were very low-brow ad hominem and tu quoque. PS I don't invest "moral authority" in almost any leading politician today, though I certainly rank Biden higher than Trump in the "personal morality" stakes.
- ravenstine 6y agoPeople are amazingly biased, perhaps dishonest, when it comes to this. Of course the same media that propagated the Russia hoax(among others) would behave totally different if the roles were reversed. The fact that they all have acted in unison, and along with social media's draconian measures, only suggests that there's actual merit to the story.