3 ms·

I did not vote GOP, at least not the president and most offices. I fully expected this outcome, and support it. Despite your accusations, I ask you to conside

I did not vote GOP, at least not the president and most offices. I fully expected this outcome, and support it. Despite your accusations, I ask you to consider that it is you who needs to assess your sources of information as well as your political stances. I was previously an avid watcher of PBS NewsHour but stopped due to the constant, obvious propaganda in the 2016 election cycle. WETA and NPR should get defunded first. When you have people who watched Lehrer say that: oopsies. As a Wikipedian, the entire left of center information space has become trash, no better than Fox News. WETA may have cleaned up their act, but alas it's too late for that. This is not a win for the GOP, this is a failure of the left and its thought leaders who still continue drinking the Kool-Aid. Trying to break out of your propaganda system will be extremely difficult and dare I say dangerous, so don't take it lightly.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
Which outcome are you supporting exactly? Please explain in what concrete ways these outcomes benefit either the average American, or America's standing in the world, or America's leadership in technological research.
- esbranson 2y ago
  Outcomes for America; other countries' anti-American propaganda will soon turn on themselves, much like it did the EU. The slash and burn is not the best, but it's better than dying of starvation. Similarly here, dumping billions and trillions, and billions more, and they cannot even implement Login.gov after being told by Congress. So, unfortunately, fire them all. The feamongering wants people to believe "hydroponics or death", but no, slash and burn at this point. One of the biggest reasons to move quickly is to get ahead of the really, really bad leftist propaganda system, to exploit the news cycle. Same goes for the billions propping up the world, from research to civilian aid. Whatever we lose, the rest of the world loses more. I would like to see the rest of the first world do something significant, like fill the void, like Europe. But let's not kid ourselves, Russian artillery is going to make their social spending very burdensome. Even if America stops literally everything, I think we'd still end up supplying more blankets to Ukraine than the rest of Europe combined. Anyone who says Germany or China is going to be more popular needs to put down the Kool-Aid.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    > and they cannot even implement Login.gov after being told by Congress What are you talking about? I use login.gov all the time. Works well. > I would like to see the rest of the first world do something significant, like fill the void, like Europe. Europe may or may not do that. But who know who will? China. Look at what's happened in Africa in the past 20 years. While the US was totally distracted with its "war on terror", China has swooped in. It has struck major deals for access to natural resources, and boosted its influence significantly primarily through infrastructure loans. > Anyone who says Germany or China is going to be more popular needs to put down the Kool-Aid. Germany, no. But China will become more popular among developing countries. I'm saying it. OK, but what I get from the jist of what you're saying is that you want to take down US's dominance on the world scene. I actually think the US' dominance has been detrimental and have no particular love for America, so in that I agree with you. On the other, China and Russia are even worse masters, so I don't see Trump's "let Rome burn" approach ultimately working out well for either the rest of the world, and certainly not America itself. But the irony is that the vast majority of Trump voters think that he wants to make the US stronger, not weaker. They will be in for a rude awakening.
    - esbranson 2y ago
      > China will become more popular among developing countries Can't wait! That's going to an awful lot of Kool-Aid though to believe that. I recommend sticking to state TV on China's popularity in any given country. > It has struck major deals for access to natural resources, and boosted its influence significantly primarily through infrastructure loans. Yeah, maybe we should have given them loans instead of aid. That would've increased our popularity to China-levels for sure. The part about natural resources will also make them popular. Lol. At least we're punking out Europeans for their natural resources instead of Africa. > take down US's dominance on the world scene That's illusory. There is no soft power without hard power, and we have it all, and will likely continue for the next four years. We will continue to do what we want, as before. > They will be in for a rude awakening. Nothing you've said really affects the US domestic situation negatively. We can get into the price of eggs and tariffs, sure, but.. We're still going to dominate. (Not high-fiving the US, but dissing the world.)
freen 2y ago
NPR doesn’t receive government funding. One of the few falsifiable statements you made is absolutely, completely, objectively false. Again, consider that perhaps your epistemology is broken. You are free to explore their audited financials, as well as their IRS 990 form, which indicates all revenue, expenses as well as top 10 salaried employees. https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance... Regarding the source of the falsehood you believed to be true, there are only two potential explanations: One, they intentionally deceived you, or two, they have no idea what they are talking about and should not be relied upon for truthful information. That this particular false belief was so strong, and so core to your political stances, that you used it as the foundation for your argument as to why the current republican administration is acting in the best interests of the nation, I would hope that this would cause you to reconsider the rest of your stances as well as more carefully scrutinize your sources of information for veracity. In short, please consider the possibility that your epistemology may be broken.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Which outcome are you supporting exactly? Please explain in what concrete ways these outcomes benefit either the average American, or America's standing in the world, or America's leadership in technological research.

esbranson 2y ago
Outcomes for America; other countries' anti-American propaganda will soon turn on themselves, much like it did the EU. The slash and burn is not the best, but it's better than dying of starvation. Similarly here, dumping billions and trillions, and billions more, and they cannot even implement Login.gov after being told by Congress. So, unfortunately, fire them all. The feamongering wants people to believe "hydroponics or death", but no, slash and burn at this point. One of the biggest reasons to move quickly is to get ahead of the really, really bad leftist propaganda system, to exploit the news cycle. Same goes for the billions propping up the world, from research to civilian aid. Whatever we lose, the rest of the world loses more. I would like to see the rest of the first world do something significant, like fill the void, like Europe. But let's not kid ourselves, Russian artillery is going to make their social spending very burdensome. Even if America stops literally everything, I think we'd still end up supplying more blankets to Ukraine than the rest of Europe combined. Anyone who says Germany or China is going to be more popular needs to put down the Kool-Aid.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  > and they cannot even implement Login.gov after being told by Congress What are you talking about? I use login.gov all the time. Works well. > I would like to see the rest of the first world do something significant, like fill the void, like Europe. Europe may or may not do that. But who know who will? China. Look at what's happened in Africa in the past 20 years. While the US was totally distracted with its "war on terror", China has swooped in. It has struck major deals for access to natural resources, and boosted its influence significantly primarily through infrastructure loans. > Anyone who says Germany or China is going to be more popular needs to put down the Kool-Aid. Germany, no. But China will become more popular among developing countries. I'm saying it. OK, but what I get from the jist of what you're saying is that you want to take down US's dominance on the world scene. I actually think the US' dominance has been detrimental and have no particular love for America, so in that I agree with you. On the other, China and Russia are even worse masters, so I don't see Trump's "let Rome burn" approach ultimately working out well for either the rest of the world, and certainly not America itself. But the irony is that the vast majority of Trump voters think that he wants to make the US stronger, not weaker. They will be in for a rude awakening.
  - esbranson 2y ago
    > China will become more popular among developing countries Can't wait! That's going to an awful lot of Kool-Aid though to believe that. I recommend sticking to state TV on China's popularity in any given country. > It has struck major deals for access to natural resources, and boosted its influence significantly primarily through infrastructure loans. Yeah, maybe we should have given them loans instead of aid. That would've increased our popularity to China-levels for sure. The part about natural resources will also make them popular. Lol. At least we're punking out Europeans for their natural resources instead of Africa. > take down US's dominance on the world scene That's illusory. There is no soft power without hard power, and we have it all, and will likely continue for the next four years. We will continue to do what we want, as before. > They will be in for a rude awakening. Nothing you've said really affects the US domestic situation negatively. We can get into the price of eggs and tariffs, sure, but.. We're still going to dominate. (Not high-fiving the US, but dissing the world.)

freen 2y ago

NPR doesn’t receive government funding. One of the few falsifiable statements you made is absolutely, completely, objectively false. Again, consider that perhaps your epistemology is broken. You are free to explore their audited financials, as well as their IRS 990 form, which indicates all revenue, expenses as well as top 10 salaried employees. https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance... Regarding the source of the falsehood you believed to be true, there are only two potential explanations: One, they intentionally deceived you, or two, they have no idea what they are talking about and should not be relied upon for truthful information. That this particular false belief was so strong, and so core to your political stances, that you used it as the foundation for your argument as to why the current republican administration is acting in the best interests of the nation, I would hope that this would cause you to reconsider the rest of your stances as well as more carefully scrutinize your sources of information for veracity. In short, please consider the possibility that your epistemology may be broken.