Random Politics Thread

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Regardless of what happens with the RiIttenhouse trial, remember, we all need to come together as a nation. Everything is so polarized now!

 

[Coriolis]

The Democrats are totally immobile as they are served by the identical wealthy, corporate and military interests that the Republicans are. We need rational conservatives the same way we need moderate Democrats - not at all. People can long all they want for the "across the aisle" cooperation but that died with Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton. When it comes to policy (that's what matters), there is very little difference. GOP makes these horrific choices and the Dems back them up - directly and indirectly.

I am speaking of something more fundamental than "across the aisle" cooperation. There are perspectives and values within traditional conservative political thought that have merit and should be part of any constructive political dialogue. This cannot happen if there is no one to articulate them. At least the Democrats have the likes of Bernie Sanders and AOC who can expound coherently on aspects of liberal thought, whether one agrees with those positions or not.

All cooperate media is not worth paying attention to - it makes no difference what side its on. It's only focus is on revenue $$ and clicks. They answer to shareholders - not viewers. Knowing that makes looking for and paying attention to legit independent media much easier and much more informative.

I agree about corporate media. Who, though, do you consider "independent media"? Where do they get their money? So-called "public media" still get their funding mostly from those same corporations. They have even started advertising.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I am speaking of something more fundamental than "across the aisle" cooperation. There are perspectives and values within traditional conservative political thought that have merit and should be part of any constructive political dialogue. This cannot happen if there is no one to articulate them. At least the Democrats have the likes of Bernie Sanders and AOC who can expound coherently on aspects of liberal thought, whether one agrees with those positions or not.

I agree about corporate media. Who, though, do you consider "independent media"? Where do they get their money? So-called "public media" still get their funding mostly from those same corporations. They have even started advertising.

In my experience, Donald Trump is a pretty effective spokesman for conservative thought, such as it is. Why do you think they love him so much (and they do, the regardless of what some sources might tell you)?

 

[ceecee]

I am speaking of something more fundamental than "across the aisle" cooperation. There are perspectives and values within traditional conservative political thought that have merit and should be part of any constructive political dialogue. This cannot happen if there is no one to articulate them. At least the Democrats have the likes of Bernie Sanders and AOC who can expound coherently on aspects of liberal thought, whether one agrees with those positions or not.

I agree about corporate media. Who, though, do you consider "independent media"? Where do they get their money? So-called "public media" still get their funding mostly from those same corporations. They have even started advertising.

Katie Porter is an even better communicator than AOC, imo.

As far as funding not for profit, independent media that can be foundation funded but transparent , not the same as corporate media. I donate to Pro Publica, Michigan Advance, Texas Tribune and Labor Notes. I also give to The Marshal Project and their Prison Journalism Project at Penn State. Here's a big list if anyone is interested.

List of Independent Media – Trustworthy Media

www.trustworthymedia.org

 

[Stigmata]

Regardless of what happens with the RiIttenhouse trial, remember, we all need to come together as a nation. Everything is so polarized now!

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

america is great because america is good

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I want him acquitted. I didn't really want to mention this on here because I figured some of the responses would be either hostile or mocking.

I'll clarify that I think he's a piece of shit and have no love for him or what he stands for. On the other hand, I want this legal precedent set so others can use it to illustrate the hypocrisy of the right. Plus, I do believe in gun rights and self-defense, even for pieces of shit, and I'd love to see more on the left exercising their 2A rights. I know most of you disagree on the 2A, and that's fine, but I can't wait for an antifa or blm supporter to shoot some right winger in self defense, then reference "the Rittenhouse precedent" during their own trial.

Fuck around and find out is what I would say to the people in support of rittenhouse. If convicted, the same people who supported him will just try to spitefully use this precedent against anyone on the left who attempts self-defense at a protest. Make it a temporary win for the right so it can be thrown right back at them in future cases. I actually don't view a Rittenhouse acquittal as a victory for the right wing, even if they will gloat and see it as a win.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I want him acquitted. I didn't really want to mention this on here because I figured some of the responses would be either hostile or mocking.

I'll clarify that I think he's a piece of shit and have no love for him or what he stands for. On the other hand, I want this legal precedent set so others can use it to illustrate the hypocrisy of the right. Plus, I do believe in gun rights and self-defense, even for pieces of shit, and I'd love to see more on the left exercising their 2A rights. I know most of you disagree on the 2A, and that's fine, but I can't wait for an antifa or blm supporter to shoot some right winger in self defense, then reference "the Rittenhouse precedent" during their own trial.

Fuck around and find out is what I would say to the people in support of rittenhouse. If convicted, the same people who supported him will just try to spitefully use this precedent against anyone on the left who attempts self-defense at a protest. Make it a temporary win for the right so it can be thrown right back at them in future cases. I actually don't view a Rittenhouse acquittal as a victory for the right wing, even if they will gloat and see it as a win.

I see what you're saying. Personally I'm in favor of things like socialist rifle clubs (in part because of cases like this; it's ridiculous and naïve to expect the cops to do anything about any of this. The police acted in this case the way I expect them to act.). I don't consider this to be an unconscionable sentiment you provided, and yet, I am skeptical about the line of reasoning you are putting forth.

What makes you think that precedent would be followed? Frankly I just view the justice system in the U.S. as corrupt and rotten at heart (which is why I don't seem myself as Lawful Good, which might have been the case for the kid version of me) so I never expect it to actually work or do what it's supposed to. I'm not sure why this would be different.

I expect this trial to be a farce as well.

 

[ceecee]

I want him acquitted. I didn't really want to mention this on here because I figured some of the responses would be either hostile or mocking.

I'll clarify that I think he's a piece of shit and have no love for him or what he stands for. On the other hand, I want this legal precedent set so others can use it to illustrate the hypocrisy of the right. Plus, I do believe in gun rights and self-defense, even for pieces of shit, and I'd love to see more on the left exercising their 2A rights. I know most of you disagree on the 2A, and that's fine, but I can't wait for an antifa or blm supporter to shoot some right winger in self defense, then reference "the Rittenhouse precedent" during their own trial.

Fuck around and find out is what I would say to the people in support of rittenhouse. If convicted, the same people who supported him will just try to spitefully use this precedent against anyone on the left who attempts self-defense at a protest. Make it a temporary win for the right so it can be thrown right back at them in future cases. I actually don't view a Rittenhouse acquittal as a victory for the right wing, even if they will gloat and see it as a win.

If I say I don't want 17, 18, 19 year old's to be treated as grown ass men, I mean him too. He's also being used by the right plus his piece of shit mother who should also be on trial and every right wing pundit that cheered this kid on.

But the one certainty is that there are a whole lot of white people that do not grasp that white supremacy and they laws that uphold it doesn't change because the people he killed are white. Aren't they always screaming - no one says anything when white people are killed!! Here's your fucking chance. But he'll be acquitted and this psycho judge will get him $5 million for wrongfully prosecution.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

If I say I don't want 17, 18, 19 year old's to be treated as grown ass men, I mean him too. He's also being used by the right plus his piece of shit mother who should also be on trial and every right wing pundit that cheered this kid on.

But the one certainty is that there are a whole lot of white people that do not grasp that white supremacy and they laws that uphold it doesn't change because the people he killed are white. Aren't they always screaming - no one says anything when white people are killed!! Here's your fucking chance. But he'll be acquitted and this psycho judge will get him $5 million for wrongfully prosecution.

Yeah, what about white on white crime?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I see what you're saying. Personally I'm in favor of things like socialist rifle clubs (in part because of cases like this; it's ridiculous and naïve to expect the cops to do anything about any of this. The police acted in this case the way I expect them to act.). I don't consider this to be an unconscionable sentiment you provided, and yet, I am skeptical about the line of reasoning you are putting forth.

What makes you think that precedent would be followed? Frankly I just view the justice system in the U.S. as corrupt and rotten at heart (which is why I don't seem myself as Lawful Good, which might have been the case for the kid version of me) so I never expect it to actually work or do what it's supposed to. I'm not sure why this would be different.

I expect this trial to be a farce as well.

I’m still too idealistic. I know in reality that a lot of people would not follow said precedent if an antifa labeled individual were in the same situation as Shittenhouse (they’d use 9/11 logic and argue that those on trial were enemy combatants or terrorists) but I’m also very principled, and just wish we could live in a fair society where no one questioned or disregarded certain principles depending on the tone of skin.

that is my explanation for my line of reasoning

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

If I say I don't want 17, 18, 19 year old's to be treated as grown ass men, I mean him too. He's also being used by the right plus his piece of shit mother who should also be on trial and every right wing pundit that cheered this kid on.

But the one certainty is that there are a whole lot of white people that do not grasp that white supremacy and they laws that uphold it doesn't change because the people he killed are white. Aren't they always screaming - no one says anything when white people are killed!! Here's your fucking chance. But he'll be acquitted and this psycho judge will get him $5 million for wrongfully prosecution.

I feel you. He’s a victim too. A piece of shit victim, but a victim. The only conviction I could get behind might be one for manslaughter.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

You're right that this is not entirely correct, but the only reason this is so is because there are people in the party who are popular because they actually believe in fighting for things rather than coming together as a nation. These people are actually loathed by the party insiders, but because of their popularity they have to follow their lead a bit to avoid being outflanked and stave off primary challenges and so on.

To the extent to which the Democratic party does not suck donkey balls it is because there is now a small but vocal faction dragging them kicking and screaming in a different direction, which forces them to moderate their love of compromise and coming together as a nation.

For instance, do you think the Biden administration has sufficiently reversed course on Trump's immigration initiatives? To me it seems like there is an awful lot of foot-dragging. It was a call to action during the election season, but they don't seem particularly eager to actually make it happen. They want the votes of people horrified by it, but they also want to get some mythical "moderate" republican so they don't want to rush too much to get it done.

The extent to which the Democratic party is worth voting for his nothing to do with the "reasonable" and "pragmatic" voices (that have been engaging in a sort of tango with the GOP while the building is burning) within the party that I was told over and over again was the best we could do.

Honestly, the response to you in the above post was kind of a mistake. I'd started writing it, got tired and gave up, and then the next day responded to ceecee - and apparently this new forum remembers to include everything previously written, even if it doesn't show in the dialogue box when posting. I don't understand this response, but the initial response to you (which I didn't realize would get posted) didn't really make sense yet either (it was a rough draft I gave up on).

Most conservatives I've actually interacted with (rather than seen on cable news shows on MSNBC) don't care about " adhering to conservative principles"; they just want a strong leader to follow who appeals to their id. Being a conservative meant "supporting Trump" to them, or "supporting Bush" before that. If Trump should stop being the vanguard id warrior they'll turn away from him on to someone else. It's just about a sort of fucked up personality cult appealing to base emotions; principles have nothing to do with it. Most of them are not like John Podheretz (who are actually loathsome individuals in their own way; they only difference is that they have a veneer of respectability).

I hate to burst your bubble but this kind of thing does not have the effect you think it does, but that's ok but it's a popular line in op-ed/pundit circles.

I never watch cable news, or tv news of any kind, unless there's some special event - and then it's usually c-span (on youtube, I don't have cable). The impressions I get are from online interaction (which I hope to God isn't an accurate generalization) and/or what I see in NYT, WaPo, Atlantic, or occasionally other similar editorial sources. Or when Reuters or AP News covers a quote. And I'm not saying that having hardcore Republicans tell the truth about the election (those who are being accused of being RINOs because they won't go along with the Big Lie, when it couldn't be further from the truth) is going to convince even most of the Trumpublican cult any time soon. But there have to be people on the fence. There must be people who believe it simply because they're surrounded by others who have absolute conviction in it, and slow and steady exposure to the truth will make them question who's right (which is almost always the case - since the truth will continue to be the truth no matter how hard the GOP spins "election fraud", it will ultimately also be the most consistent, and calm people do eventually take notice of that). Having big Republican names like Liz Cheney standing behind it puts a dent in the "it's partisan propaganda" argument they're using. When those people on the fence start to come around, then the power of conviction contagion will start spreading in the opposite direction. (Very, very slowly, but still).

Honestly, the only Republican I personally know who is even willing to openly express disappointment currently with the party is highlander. About 2/3 of the Republicans (at least they were prior to this past 5 years) I personally know aren't willing to talk about it, at all, and I get the impression they're being a lot quieter than they used to be because they really can't figure out what the fuck is going on. Then maybe 1/3 of the other Republicans I know are the usual belligerent, railroading assholes that vomit out spastic deflection and bullying discourse (in the guise of "debate"). I have to assume the squeakiest wheels in current discourse are not representative of the entire base who voted for Trump (and therefore, aren't as irredeemable as those types seem to be).

I mean, it's honestly soothing to have people like Joe Walsh, George Conway, Tom Nichols, and others on Twitter constantly point out the clear propaganda. It's a reminder that hotly disagreeing with someone about only policy is exponentially less infuriating than witnessing how the entire GOP media bubble and nearly the entire GOP elected base is flat out lying.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I’m still too idealistic. I know in reality that a lot of people would not follow said precedent if an antifa labeled individual were in the same situation as Shittenhouse (they’d use 9/11 logic and argue that those on trial were enemy combatants or terrorists) but I’m also very principled, and just wish we could live in a fair society where no one questioned or disregarded certain principles depending on the tone of skin.

that is my explanation for my line of reasoning

The fact is that our justice system in practice protects and some people and safeguards their rights and not others (which makes a mockery of the entire concept of it as a justice system). This is what we're seeing with Rittenhouse.

I don't feel great about him getting acquitted because I know that precedent won't apply and simply saying "by your logic that is invalid" is pissing into the wind. I think if there's any precedent this sets, it's for more stuff like this to happen in the future. Maybe I'd better learn how to shoot.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Honestly, the response to you in the above post was kind of a mistake. I'd started writing it, got tired and gave up, and then the next day responded to ceecee - and apparently this new forum remembers to include everything previously written, even if it doesn't show in the dialogue box when posting. I don't understand this response, but the initial response to you (which I didn't realize would get posted) didn't really make sense yet either (it was a rough draft I gave up on).

I am pretty caustic sometimes, so I suppose I earn the occasional reaction like that.

I never watch cable news, or tv news of any kind, unless there's some special event - and then it's usually c-span (on youtube, I don't have cable). The impressions I get are from online interaction (which I hope to God isn't an accurate generalization) and/or what I see in NYT, WaPo, Atlantic, or occasionally other similar editorial sources. Or when Reuters or AP News covers a quote. And I'm not saying that having hardcore Republicans tell the truth about the election (those who are being accused of being RINOs because they won't go along with the Big Lie, when it couldn't be further from the truth) is going to convince even most of the Trumpublican cult any time soon. But there have to be people on the fence. There must be people who believe it simply because they're surrounded by others who have absolute conviction in it, and slow and steady exposure to the truth will make them question who's right (which is almost always the case - since the truth will continue to be the truth no matter how hard the GOP spins "election fraud", it will ultimately also be the most consistent, and calm people do eventually take notice of that). Having big Republican names like Liz Cheney standing behind it puts a dent in the "it's partisan propaganda" argument they're using. When those people on the fence start to come around, then the power of conviction contagion will start spreading in the opposite direction. (Very, very slowly, but still).

Honestly, the only Republican I personally know who is even willing to openly express disappointment currently with the party is highlander. About 2/3 of the Republicans (at least they were prior to this past 5 years) I personally know aren't willing to talk about it, at all, and I get the impression they're being a lot quieter than they used to be because they really can't figure out what the fuck is going on. Then maybe 1/3 of the other Republicans I know are the usual belligerent, railroading assholes that vomit out spastic deflection and bullying discourse (in the guise of "debate"). I have to assume the squeakiest wheels in current discourse are not representative of the entire base who voted for Trump (and therefore, aren't as irredeemable as those types seem to be).

I mean, it's honestly soothing to have people like Joe Walsh, George Conway, Tom Nichols, and others on Twitter constantly point out the clear propaganda. It's a reminder that hotly disagreeing with someone about only policy is exponentially less infuriating than witnessing how the entire GOP media bubble and nearly the entire GOP elected base is flat out lying.

It seems to me that in my experience these sorts of people usually end up going along with the GOP regardless of what happens, because of whatever particular GOP thing is important to them, be it abortion or their taxes. I think people like Highlander who have integrity are pretty rare, unfortunately. I never see those people push back after all. I'll argue about stuff with my boomer liberal parents all the time; if they are that afraid of social ostracism I doubt they can be counted on for much of anything. I understand that there is pressure to believe certain things in some circles (hell it's true for liberals, too), but someone quietly going along with something and not even providing some pushback or challenge, well, what is the value of any of that?

I'd also argue that if you can lay the decline of this country at any one individual (although doing so is simplistic), it's DIck Cheney. I believe Liz is cut from the same cloth, regardless of whatever political miscalculations she might have made in the current moment.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

All cooperate media is not worth paying attention to - it makes no difference what side its on. It's only focus is on revenue $$ and clicks. They answer to shareholders - not viewers. Knowing that makes looking for and paying attention to legit independent media much easier and much more informative.

I don't believe moderate Democrats have any more integrity than Republicans and American conservatism is its own special kind of mental illness at this point. I don't care what they say and I don't care what they think. Democrats refuse to make progressive policy that is WIDELY supported, even in places where Democrats govern virtually alone.

Like I said in my response to JVDB, the post that this^ is responding to is an accidentally posted word-salady rough draft, so it's probably a mistake to even respond to this (building misunderstanding on misunderstanding). But are you saying that you consider those effected by the en masse mental illness of the current GOP to even really be Republicans? (And that's why you're saying moderate Democrats don't have more integrity, because you're not including that absolutely completely batshit officials in that comparison?) I'm having trouble making sense of this, and I think it's because my initial post didn't make sense.

I don't think Manchin has more integrity than, say, Liz Cheney. But the people who won't even admit that election fraud was not a problem and that Biden did in fact win the election? You don't think they have less integrity than moderate Democrats?

And I'm not sure what falls under the purview of corporate media - I assume that NYT, WaPo, Atlantic, et al, do. But surely they're exponentially better than anything in the propaganda bubble of Fox and OAN? This feels like a no-brainer, and that I'm probably just not getting something.

I care that they make policy choices that harm the majority and pander to a tiny minority of wealthy and corporate interests. And as far as those GOP allies that the Democrats are always falling over themselves to appease and want to work with to make it appear that they are humping both sides to death....

ALL responsible for why Congress has become so incredibly dysfunctional over the past two decades...

Gang of 14 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The very best part of this article, the guy so many moderates adored...


So again I say - we need moderate Democrats and rational Republicans not at all.

BTW. Republicans are going to legalize pot at the federal level - something Joe Biden refuses to do. The only conclusion I can draw is that Dems want to lose to stop progressives and progressive policy from actually being implemented so much, they are ok with political suicide.

Maybe I need to clarify: we need more Republicans who aren't mentally ill to convince people the argument that "Biden won the election" isn't propaganda. They're calling everyone who doesn't support that big lie a "RINO" - and to say that Liz Cheney is a RINO is fucking ridiculous. We need more Republicans who aren't patently mentally ill (who can at least recognize objective reality) to save democracy, to prove that this objective reality Democrats keep talking about isn't propaganda.

Another part of the problem - from what I gather - is that all the media sources currently dismissed as "FAKE NEWS" kinda did this to themselves slowly over time by not having conservative representation? I wouldn't know, I'm not conservative. But I've heard the complaint widely, and I heard a good point on a podcast I listened to a couple weeks ago about the breakdown of the news business model (Jonathan Haidt and Jonathan Rauch). People can easily hear how an argument from the other side is short-sighted, but we can rarely see where our own conviction has cemented in such a way that leaves gaping blind spots. They claimed there isn't enough conservative representation in most news sources to catch these blind spots before stories/posts are posted to the public. I'm not saying this is clearly true, but I am saying it's credible to me, and it makes sense of the endless complaining I've heard about the biggest news sources being biased to the left: conservative people stopped listening (or started listening to the big gassy bubble called Rush Limbaugh/Fox/Oan/etc) because they could perceive the blind spot, and the gassy bubble made 'emotional' sense to them (appealed to their emotions). I'm not saying that fixing this - hiring conservative viewpoints to add - will instantly make people come back to reality.

I'm probably not explaining this well. I started reading Rauch's book The Constitution of Truth a few weeks ago (after listening to him and Haidt discuss this) and I'm not beginning to do justice to what he said. I'll probably just come back and post actual pieces of the book.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Like I said in my response to JVDB, the post that this^ is responding to is an accidentally posted word-salady rough draft, so it's probably a mistake to even respond to this (building misunderstanding on misunderstanding). But are you saying that you consider those effected by the en masse mental illness of the current GOP to even really be Republicans? (And that's why you're saying moderate Democrats don't have more integrity, because you're not including that absolutely completely batshit officials in that comparison?) I'm having trouble making sense of this, and I think it's because my initial post didn't make sense.

I don't think Manchin has more integrity than, say, Liz Cheney. But the people who won't even admit that election fraud was not a problem and that Biden did in fact win the election? You don't think they have less integrity than moderate Democrats?

And I'm not sure what falls under the purview of corporate media - I assume that NYT, WaPo, Atlantic, et al, do. But surely they're exponentially better than anything in the propaganda bubble of Fox and OAN? This feels like a no-brainer, and that I'm probably just not getting something.



Maybe I need to clarify: we need more Republicans who aren't mentally ill to convince people the argument that "Biden won the election" isn't propaganda. They're calling everyone who doesn't support that big lie a "RINO" - and to say that Liz Cheney is a RINO is fucking ridiculous. We need more Republicans who aren't patently mentally ill (who can at least recognize objective reality) to save democracy, to prove that this objective reality Democrats keep talking about isn't propaganda.

Another part of the problem - from what I gather - is that all the media sources currently dismissed as "FAKE NEWS" kinda did this to themselves slowly over time by not having conservative representation? I wouldn't know, I'm not conservative. But I've heard the complaint widely, and I heard a good point on a podcast I listened to a couple weeks ago about the breakdown of the news business model (Jonathan Haidt and Jonathan Rauch). People can easily hear how an argument from the other side is short-sighted, but we can rarely see where our own conviction has cemented in such a way that leaves gaping blind spots. They claimed there isn't enough conservative representation in most news sources to catch these blind spots before stories/posts are posted to the public. I'm not saying this is clearly true, but I am saying it's credible to me, and it makes sense of the endless complaining I've heard about the biggest news sources being biased to the left: conservative people stopped listening (or started listening to the big gassy bubble called Rush Limbaugh/Fox/Oan/etc) because they could perceive the blind spot, and the gassy bubble made 'emotional' sense to them (appealed to their emotions). I'm not saying that fixing this - hiring conservative viewpoints to add - will instantly make people come back to reality.

I'm probably not explaining this well. I started reading Rauch's book The Constitution of Truth a few weeks ago (after listening to him and Haidt discuss this) and I'm not beginning to do justice to what he said. I'll probably just come back and post actual pieces of the book.

I think perhaps some news outlets might be biased to a sort of centrist Democratic perspective, but I wouldn't call them "left-wing" biased. I think they didn't help matters with their endless repetition of the minute foibiles of Donald Trump, like Twitter typos and the like.

But to put things in perspective, during the run-up to the war in Iraq, the anti-war perspective was far more marginalized from a media perspective than any conservative viewpoints are today, but then centrist Democrats were on board with the war in Iraq.

I think we do need more perspectives in the media, but that would go beyond just having conservatives around which already have quite a bit of representation. I would like more calling out of the Democratic party for tending to continue Republican policies, for instance. That's something that news organizations do have a blind spot and don't bring up,, and in a sense, conservatives are right to point out that this is hypocrisy. I do think a responsibility to the truth (which I believe exists) has long been sacrificed for a kind of goosing of the political horse race because that builds more "drama" or something.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I'd also argue that if you can lay the decline of this country at any one individual (although doing so is simplistic), it's DIck Cheney. I believe Liz is cut from the same cloth, regardless of whatever political miscalculations she might have made in the current moment.

I agree with every part of this. It's like Cheney (and everything Cheney-like, with their "blah blah corporation, trickle-down tax cuts blah blah, socialism!') created behemoth authoritarian golems that now even they can't control.

 

[ceecee]

I'd also argue that if you can lay the decline of this country at any one individual (although doing so is simplistic), it's DIck Cheney. I believe Liz is cut from the same cloth, regardless of whatever political miscalculations she might have made in the current moment.

I'd go with Regan overall but Dick Cheney as easily the most evil pile of shit that was never actually president.

 

[ceecee]

Another part of the problem - from what I gather - is that all the media sources currently dismissed as "FAKE NEWS" kinda did this to themselves slowly over time by not having conservative representation?

I don't believe that at all. What mainstream cooperate media did to themselves was continue on and on and on with the false balance fallacy - an attempt to avoid bias, and gives unsupported or dubious positions an illusion of respectability . How long did "liberal" media like CNN have right wing fash friendly commentary from people like Rick Santorum, Jeffery Lord or Kylie Mcinerney? And how did that work out? I think they all got fired because they are conservatives, unmoored from reality and reason as most of them are and felt they should be allowed to say anything they wished using freedom of speech and freedom of the press as a shield.

Being anti-media is a huge part of the GOP platform - not just a small number of conservatives. I have yet to hear a single honest reason why voices that spread disinformation and lies should have a place anywhere in media because in the end the right has been feeding people susceptible to their message a steady diet of hate, rage and paranoia for decades. I see no point in allowing that to spread when we have ample evidence what it promotes and causes.

They'll never be convinced that Biden won the election because they live in a simplified, alternate reality that's as real to them as actual reality is to us. Right wing media and punditry gave them the country they want to see - not the country that actually exists.