Danica Patrick must have crashed without a helmet back in her racin' days. It's no surprise she's climbed aboard the Trump-Vance train:
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
I was, and I did. With @blazers . I lost that bet, and I paid up in full. I lose a shit ton of bets, but I manage to win slightly more than I lose, so I consider it a profitable endeavor. Sometimes I make bets that I'm pretty sure I'll lose because I let my mouth write checks that I need to cash - wouldn't want everyone thinking I'm a bitch boi for backing down off my claims like has happened to you around here.
please point out in what way my description varies from the reality of the video. I can save you some time and further embarrassment...it doesn't. Or if you prefer to indulge in further self-ridicule, give us your version of her press to extract the answer she was obviously seeking to obtain.
And answering the way he did afforded him the opportunity to express a problem with the election, and he could have offered more...like the FBI inexplicably downplaying the laptop as Russian disinformation when they knew damn well it wasn't. I'm not sure how anyone can see that somehow working against him. The way he calmly fielded her insistent pointedness gets him bonus points.
Lulu Garcia-Navarro, whom you are suggesting is not a "decent journalist," studied at Georgetown University and received her master's degree in journalism from City University in London, and she is a 25-year veteran and winner of both the Edward R. Murrow Award and the Peabody Award. So we can now add journalism to the list of things you are completely ignorant about.
Anytime an interviewee avoids answering a simple, point-blank question by either trying to change the subject or answering the question with their own question, a good journalist will press the issue and ask the question as many times as necessary to get an answer. This is, in fact, an example of good journalistic discipline. I'm sure if a journalist uses this same tactic with someone like, say, Kamala Harris, for you that would validate the journalist as a professional in the field. But let a journalist ask tough questions repeatedly to JD Vance, who is obviously dodging the question, and suddenly the journalist is acting indecently.
For such an old man, you have little to no wisdom.
You guys should read your own articles before spreading more disinformation.
Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship
In an interview with Joe Rogan, Mark Zuckerberg says the story was flagged after an FBI warning.www.bbc.com
"Facebook did not completely ban sharing of the article, but instead limited how much its algorithm automatically shared it to other people for a week, while third-party fact-checkers tried to verify the reporting."
I don't know that I have a big problem with Musk throwing his weight behind Trump. I don't like that it could help Trump win, of course, and it affirms that Elon isn't someone anyone with a brain should admire. But is it legally or morally wrong?
That said, efforts like these should certainly be considered campaign contributions. We need a way to reasonably assess the value of that kind of message manipulation. In principle, it's similar to advertising, and advertising isn't free.
Of course campaign contributions have very few restrictions since Citizens United, but we should at least be able to know what the dark money is doing.
the economy is great right now and trump is a fascist…that’s the news today mark milley’s quote.
First of all, that’s censorship. Period. Don’t try to dress it up. And that’s what they’re admitting to. COVID is another. I can only imagine what else is soon to be discovered.
This is how it always goes. First, “we didn’t do that!” Then, “what we did really isn’t that bad!” ( you are here). Next is, “we’re saving democracy!” Lastly, “this needs to be done and if you don’t agree, you’re a threat!”
Here's Vance being every bit the delusional cultists as you. Of course, he doesn't really believe what he's saying.
I don't think they should have suppressed it. I don't own FB or Twitter or any of the social media platforms. If the people who own them decide to impose rules, or suspend accounts, or dialogue, that's their choice. I don't agree with it, but they don't ask me. However, they apparently allowed the discussions to continue, and finally lifted any suppressive actions.
"Covid is another?" What does that mean? Another what?
Misinformation is a thing, and there's no objective definition of what it is...so, we're stuck with it.
you're just a moron, of course, and a stulted, one-way sort of person....a message board hack, if you will. I don't think I just told anybody anything they don't already know, but I enjoy pointing it out anyway.
Credentials don't make someone a good journalist; how they conduct themselves and doing what a journalist should do is what matters. The phenomenon we have been witnessing for the past number of years now is yellow journalism disguised as what is ostensibly top-notch journalism just because the journalists are well-credentialed and have prestigious jobs. But they more and more conduct themselves like journalistic hacks and political hatchet men, taking it on themselves to force their agendas down our throats and pandering to a particular audience instead of trying to present unpainted reality for us to make of it what we will.
And that's the rub for me. Be a decent journalist and just let me have the black and the white of it, and not a force-fed version of what you think the world should be like and who the bad guys are who don't happen to see it that way. I don't care about left or right in that regard, just ask a question and get an answer and I'll take it from there. I'm smart enough to see when an answer has been avoided and when it has been qualified and I don't need to be insulted by some condescending , well-credentialed asshole who thinks only her view and scoring points with the leftist audience should be what matters. 'Ha, I'm a leftist heroine because I got in a shot at orange man'.
In this case, the answer being sought was a trap because the question of non-certification had already been likened to outright rebellion and the end of democracy by the usual media hacks and leftist zealots like you. A deaf and blind man could tell that that is what she was driving at. No one of right mind would blame Vance for qualifying the answer in skillfully dodging the trap.
And you and your ilk are oblivious to the fact that that is why Trump has so much support. You and other dolts talk about Trump cults, but the fact is that if there's a cult, it's the cult of being fed up with one-way journalism that happens to be AIMED at Trump...and leftist politicians and officials undemocratically weaponizing their positions.
So you ridicule my wisdom (while attempting your usual pathetic, low-life, ad hominem cheap shot) and ironically you display none yourself. You say I would react differently if the same tactic was used on Kamala Harris, yet we wouldn't know if that's true because the same tactic isn't used on Kamala Harris although if ever such a tactic was justified, it would be with her and her reluctance to face a tough question. All I want is fair and balanced reporting, not editorializing interviews. Not so with you, because fairness and honesty isn't in your playbook.
The truth is, you're just excusing this (predictably, of course) because it involved the Trump bid for the presidency that you always want to see put in a bad light..
Similar threads
