Like most of us who walk the earth, I gravitate toward those who are like me. Our tastes, education level, culture, language, socio-economic status, and our politics help us choose our friends. At the same time, Facebook and other social media brings together strange bedfellows as we "friend" people that we know or knew but not like us and who we would not necessarily hang out with.
and
Wow.
OK, so let's start there! Let's talk about policy! Shall I re-post my entire 22 months' worth of blog posts? Hahaha
Here are just a few policies which I detest, and a very few links to illustrate his policies. If anyone wants more links, let me know and I'll point you to some least-biased sources. I really wanted to add links, but it became overwhelming.
Trump's dangerous policies:
* Hobbling science and science research
* Gutting the Department of Education
* Appointing cabinet members who disdain the very departments they lead
* Separating moms from their babies and jailing children
* Hostility to immigrants and refugees; ending DACA
* Climbing into bed with the NRA
* Having had advisors and cabinet members who are in jail
* The gawd-damn wall
* Demonizing LGBTQ people, including wanting to banning them from the military and attempting to make them invisible
* Policies that piss off our allies
* Hostility toward Muslims and the Muslim ban (and the hypocritical policy of protecting rich business partners in Saudi Arabia)
* Policies that harm women, including defunding Planned Parenthood, nominating Supreme Court justices that will overturn Roe v Wade, and policies from A to Z that hurt women and children
* Policies that take away healthcare coverage, especially for our most vulnerable (those who use Medicaid), striving to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.
* Trade policy: tariffs, that are overwhelming opposed, even by his supporters.
* Policies that give tax breaks to the wealthiest of the wealthy.
* Policies that gut our National Parks
* Policies that harm businesses and drive them overseas.
* Policies that deny climate change
* Policies that give favor to Russia
....and there are more but my fingers are tired.
Not official party-line policies, but these personal habits, which one might call personal policies (He rarely deviates from these):
* His policy about making journalists "enemies of the state"
* His policy of degrading women
* His policy to bully and name-call his critics
* The policy of believing and falling in love with a brutal dictators, including one especially brutal dictator with nukes
* His hate-mongering
* His fear-mongering
* His dangerous rhetoric
* His policy of defending Nazis and White Nationalists and their sympathizers, going so far to call himself a "Nationalist."
* His policy to incite violence against his detractors
* His policies to act like a fascist dictator
* His hiding his tax status and his tax evasion over decades in cahoots with his father
* His policy to lie about everything in order to keep his base intentionally misinformed.
Which brings me to:
Trump's lies and the circular arguments
My friend, in the same thread, when I pointed to this list of all of the falsehoods surrounding Trump, responded:
Let's take her second bit of thought first.
It's really unfathomable how anyone in this country can use this sort of argument to defend the most lying individual in government in America's history. Even if she distrusts the fact-checkers around the world, people close to the President and his own media mouthpiece agree, he lies, and he lies often.
But let's just give the benefit of the doubt, that he "just boasts." Boasting is harmful too. One can lose credibility quite quickly if one is prone to boasting. And when Trump "makes false statements," this is also un-Presidential. By the very definition that she cited, "A false statement is a statement that is untrue but not necessarily told to mislead, as a statement given by someone who does not know it is untrue." I submit that if any one person should strive to know the truth of the statements that he is about to make, then it is the President of the United States of America. And further, if he is informed that a statement he made was unfortunately -- and unknowingly -- false, then it is his DUTY to correct it!!
I challenge anyone to show my ONE example, just one, where he has backed out of a "false statement" and corrected himself.
Also, she calls Trump an "optimist" which is absolutely mind-boggling. He is one of the most fatalistic public personalities I can think of! Just look at this from the Washington Post: 'It doesn't matter.' 'We'll see.' The Trump Doctrine is sounding more fatalistic every day.
She apologizes for him also by saying he is "careless with his language." This, too, is an unacceptable trait in a President. Just plain unacceptable. I can't think of another President who was described as such. So even if we give him the benefit of the doubt that he "boasts" and is "careless with his language," or "tells falsehoods rather than lies," well, none of that is OK. A President is held to a higher standard. Our country is better than that.
Even if his buffoonery and "gaffes" were not all so full of lies and hate, he would still resemble reasonably presidential President like George W Bush (who we did not feel the need to protest in the streets about). But Trump is full of lies and hate. And I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt. He lies. Pure and simple. Pathological. And this is one big, BIG reason to hate him.
Let's look at his lies.
How about this doozy, from just yesterday? From Fortune magazine: 'The Greatest Idea I Think I’ve Ever Had.' Trump Repeatedly Boasts About a Vets Healthcare Law at Rallies. Obama Passed It in 2014
Here is a list of his false and misleading claims.
And here is another one.
And here is another one.
And even FAUX News has called him out on his lies.
But my friend and her friends are still act as apologists. And they don't seem to be interested in getting through the lies/false statements/boasts and finding the truth.
When she stated that the fact-checker Politifact is "has pledged committed to an agenda" I asked her what her sources for information are, how she strives to find the truth, and how she finds least-biased sources. She said she consumes "anything and everything." I pressed her to name some specific sources, and her response was:
This is interesting to me. And filled my understanding a bit more. Facebook and YouTube are not primary sources. In fact, they are some of the sources of some of the most false "information" available. Airline Magazine? I looked that up, and I could not find a news source called Airline Magazine. There are magazines available on airplanes. I think that may be what she means? Not exactly hard-hitting journalism there. And we know that FAUX News is an entertainment site, an unapologetic mouthpiece for the Right, and not at all a legitimate source. CNN is closer to being a good source. It's more factual, but biased to the left, and it's inflammatory and often speculative, especially in their 24-hour TV cycle with developing stories and talking head opinion pieces. "Conversations with friends," well, I'll let that sit. That's not a news source. There was crickets about my question about how she checks her sources. I asked her what she meant by "unedited versions." Did she mean going to original sources, less-biased sources? There was no answer.
I am beginning to understand that this lack of a desire to find the truth is a large part of the problem with the Right's apologist tendencies.
Another of her friends chimed in on this issue:
I have no argument that every source is biased to some degree. Each writer is human, after all. But there is a difference between biased and factual. And indeed, there are sources that are least biased and most factual. I wanted to delve further into this and talk about bias, factual reporting, and fact-checking, but it got to be too much to do in this post. So, I will save this interesting topic and all my research for another post.
Thank you for sticking with me and reading all of this. It was cathartic for me to write. It was gratifying that my search for understanding has uncovered a few more stones. It has distracted me from the horrors and violence that befell our nation this week.
Thanks for reading, thanks for resisting. Now, let's get our go-to-votin' duds on and get to the polls!
RESIST! VOTE!
P.S. I've done something in this post that I've never done before in this blog in the last two years. The first one who can tell me what it is will get a coffee gift card from me!
I have a few Facebook friends who are decidedly not aligned with my political beliefs. Most of these people I respect as people. If you know me in person, you know I am a kind, compassionate, and respectful person, and I think I'm pretty much the same behind a computer screen. It is difficult at times to gently confront, challenge, and question on Facebook when insults, abuse, and ad-hominem attacks are often the response.
I wish I had kept screen shots of my various interactions, but here is one example of an interaction that I was able to find.
My friend PS posted an article about arming school teachers. It was a public post, but I'm going to remove the names and use initials. The author of each quote has initials in bold. (All quotes are copy-and-paste)
One of her friends commented (in response to another poster, not me):
One of her friends commented (in response to another poster, not me):
MM No need to be sorry for your opinion. We have tried gun bans in major cities, gun free zones, improved background checks, more gun laws. IT DOES NOT WORK. It's not the gun, knife, sword, or inanimate object, group, organization, or political party. It is the crazy person determined to do damage. EVERY federal building has limited, controlled access, metal detectors, armed security, open coat, brief case and backpack searches. Their has never been a federal building massacre. The government has decided that self serving politicians, activist judges, and slimy lawyers are more valuable then our children. Israel solved the problem 40 years ago. We've know how to solve it since 9/11. Politicians do not have the will, desire, or pressure to solve it. It's not about money, they "need" the grand standing, media "face time", and re-election talking points. Anything less then comprehensive risk assessment and complete access control is pointless and doomed to fail.
(I know; he was completely wrong to say "there has never been a federal building massacre" We all remember Oklahoma City.)
My reply to the gun issue in general, and partially in response to the above, was:
My reply to the gun issue in general, and partially in response to the above, was:
LSR It's such a faulty argument that regulating "inanimate objects" is worthless and not done. We have tons of inanimate objects that have tegulations that save lives. Elevators, ovens, (and your favorite silly comparison) AUTOMOBILES, paint, anything with an electrical plug, heaters, building codes, on and on. Regulations will not strip weapons from your hands. They will make easy access more difficult. This is the start we need. We shouldn't need to put the burden on our teachers to be soldiers and not teachers.
PS pointed out that no one had mentioned "no regulations." She wrote: "ok, so in MM's quote he is saying that the gun is not at fault, he is not saying there should not be regulations. And I agree with you that inanimate objects have, do, and should have regulations. But banning guns, magazine sizes, etc. is not effective. Taking away lawful citizens rights is not acceptable, and would make the problem worse. Closing loopholes in the system would help."
Fair enough. She pointed out that his comment was railing about "banning guns" (which most of us Libtard Leftist Snowflakes don't want to do, and which has never been done, but that's a whole 'nother topic). My friend was measured in her response. Her friend, however.....!!
This was his response to me:
MM Little Sister Resister, Are you illiterate or can you not comprehend English? I see it over and over from the anti-gun crowd. Add words, paraphrase, change meanings, or flat out lie about what was said. I NEVER said inanimate objects should not be regulated. That is a asinine statement and a bald face lie. I said they are not to blame, they are inanimate (look up the definition). You purposely change the conversation and add "ideas" that are not there. If you cannot be honest, and stay on subject, go the hell back to your "safe space". I have no tolerance for "creative" liars.
Do they not understand that this type of inflammatory, bullying, ad-hominum attacks does nothing to further constructive dialogue? Or want people to continue to try to understand their viewpoints? It really opened my eyes. Many on the right indeed act like bullying, inflammatory jerks! This behavior undermines, not promotes, their viewpoints. Their Supreme Leader enables them to act this way. This type of response does give me another little insight into the mind of the Right, though.
So, my friend PS, who posted the article about arming teachers, I know as an acquaintance, really, from many years ago. We grew up in the same town at the same time. She was kind to me in high school and we did socialize some. My mom worked with her dad. Now, she is a Trumpeter. And I know her to be intelligent and kind. She is a world-traveler, educated, and professional. Though we grew up in the same wonderful (and nearly-homogenous) town, there's no real reason why we should be similar politically.
Interacting about political issues on Facebook makes me anxious -- probably because I cringe at the prospect of having insults slung at me like Thanksgiving Day mashed potatoes.
Anyway, the inspiration for this post. (Finally Little Sister Resister gets to the point!) This week my friend posted publicly with a link to this Wall Street Journal Op/Ed by David Gelernter. A civil discussion took place on her thread. When it's civil, it is easier to see the reasoning underneath, and I start to understand a bit more.
Even with the civility, I still got anxious. And anxiety fuels my need to write. This blog is a way to deal with the overwhelming anxiety that the 2016 election caused. And PS's post was part of what left me anxious for a couple of days. My response to the op/ed, and to the many comments on her Facebook thread, was too much for a couple Facebook comments, I frankly didn't want to be subjected to insults, and my questions weren't being answered, so I used it as an inspiration for this post and took to my trusty computer.
I have two goals in this post. One, to describe the reasons why this Leftist hates Trump. (By the way, we need to embrace that word, leftist. It used to bristle me, but hey! the Lefter the Better, is my 2018 thinking!) And two, to give a glimpse into an individual on the Right's head.
Mr. Gelernter in his WSJ op/ed, proclaimed to everyone that the real reason Leftists hate Trump -- and therefore America -- is because:
Not that every leftist hates America. But the leftists I know do hate Mr. Trump’s vulgarity, his unwillingness to walk away from a fight, his bluntness, his certainty that America is exceptional, his mistrust of intellectuals, his love of simple ideas that work, and his refusal to believe that men and women are interchangeable. Worst of all, he has no ideology except getting the job done. His goals are to do the task before him, not be pushed around, and otherwise to enjoy life. In short, he is a typical American—except exaggerated, because he has no constraints to cramp his style except the ones he himself invents.and
The difference between citizens who hate Mr. Trump and those who can live with him—whether they love or merely tolerate him—comes down to their views of the typical American: the farmer, factory hand, auto mechanic, machinist, teamster, shop owner, clerk, software engineer, infantryman, truck driver, housewife. The leftist intellectuals I know say they dislike such people insofar as they tend to be conservative Republicans.
and
True, Mr. Trump is the unconstrained average citizen. Obviously you can hate some of his major characteristics—the infantile lack of self-control in his Twitter babble, his hitting back like a spiteful child bully—without hating the average American, who has no such tendencies. (Mr. Trump is improving in these two categories.) You might dislike the whole package. I wouldn’t choose him as a friend, nor would he choose me. But what I see on the left is often plain, unconditional hatred of which the hater—God forgive him—is proud. It’s discouraging, even disgusting. And it does mean, I believe, that the Trump-hater truly does hate the average American—male or female, black or white. Often he hates America, too.
Wow.
It's hard to know exactly where to begin. I have to say that all of this is rubbish. Absolutely rubbish, and for the Right to be telling the "average American" that Trump is just like them and that all on the Left hates him or them for it, that's crazy. It's so crazy that it is not really worth refuting. We on the Left ARE "the farmer, factory hand, auto mechanic, machinist, teamster, shop owner, clerk, software engineer, infantryman, truck driver, housewife." We Libtards, by definition, want to support all those people! And we, too, have certainty that America is exceptional. It's been a wonderful experiment in government, and our ideals are worth striving for. We are exceptional, but we still have a lot of work to do toward realizing those ideals.
Does Gelernter really think that the majority of Americans (remember, a majority of registered voters are registered Dems, and a majority of voters voted against Trump) are the evil ivory tower intellectuals that Mr. Gelernter fears so much? (The War on Intellectuals is a topic that I've had on the back burner for a long time, BTW, and I hope to complete someday, if Trumpster Fires ever start to wane).
But my goal here was not to refute bit by bit the ridiculous claims that Mr. Gelernter made. My goal was to explain the real reasons the Left (at least this Leftie) hates 45. As one commenter on the original Facebook thread said, "This is an opinion piece by a Trump supporter proposing to explain the Left. It's completely wrong and seems to me to be an attempt to help the Right dismiss the real reasons that those on the Left dislike trump. Perhaps someone who actually dislikes Trump would be a better person to write this opinion."
Challenge accepted!
Oh so many reasons! PS suggested that we Leftists don't or can't argue about policy. She seemed to understand Mr. Gelernter when he equated complaining about Trump's policies with being against America. To be fair, her complete comment was:
PS So the article charges the left don't like America.. That is an unfair charged statement. I guess I ignore obvious generalities like that. I can see their point, if you like Trumps policy and think it's what is best for America, being against it makes you sort of against America. But it's not accurate none the less. As you said our difference stem from disagreements on what is best for the country. But instead of hearing the left argue about policy, I see a lot of people scream about how he lies, cheats, is racist etc. It's all directed at HIM not his policy.
OK, so let's start there! Let's talk about policy! Shall I re-post my entire 22 months' worth of blog posts? Hahaha
Here are just a few policies which I detest, and a very few links to illustrate his policies. If anyone wants more links, let me know and I'll point you to some least-biased sources. I really wanted to add links, but it became overwhelming.
Trump's dangerous policies:
* Hobbling science and science research
* Gutting the Department of Education
* Appointing cabinet members who disdain the very departments they lead
* Separating moms from their babies and jailing children
* Hostility to immigrants and refugees; ending DACA
* Climbing into bed with the NRA
* Having had advisors and cabinet members who are in jail
* The gawd-damn wall
* Demonizing LGBTQ people, including wanting to banning them from the military and attempting to make them invisible
* Policies that piss off our allies
* Hostility toward Muslims and the Muslim ban (and the hypocritical policy of protecting rich business partners in Saudi Arabia)
* Policies that harm women, including defunding Planned Parenthood, nominating Supreme Court justices that will overturn Roe v Wade, and policies from A to Z that hurt women and children
* Policies that take away healthcare coverage, especially for our most vulnerable (those who use Medicaid), striving to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.
* Trade policy: tariffs, that are overwhelming opposed, even by his supporters.
* Policies that give tax breaks to the wealthiest of the wealthy.
* Policies that gut our National Parks
* Policies that harm businesses and drive them overseas.
* Policies that deny climate change
* Policies that give favor to Russia
....and there are more but my fingers are tired.
One commenter stated, "Although there are times I cringe at his rhetoric and feel that he is his own worst enemy, he has made my life better and he does not allow my country to be bullied on the world stage. So he makes gaffes, so what?"
So what?? So he is President. of. the. United. States. Gaffes matter. Words matter. Rhetoric matters.
And it's not better to be the bully vs. the victim of bullying. (Giving the benefit of the doubt again. I've never had the sense that the U.S. has been bullied in all the many years I've been on Earth).
To be fair, my life is also better, in one way only. My brokerage account is singing. Yes, the upper-middle-class lives are better, because one thing that is improving in the U.S. is the stock market. Not necessarily the whole economy, because housing is struggling and wages have stalled, but the stock market is going up. As it has for 100 years. And as it will long after Trump is gone.
Am I happy my stock holdings are going up? Yes, of course. To be clear, I was also happy about that in just about every single year since I started investing in 1986, through 15 years of Republican Presidents and 18 years of Democrat. Yes, the stock market is going up. Let's go ahead and give that to Trump. Economists know that stock market changes are not really influenced by any President or his policies, but let's put that aside for now. Yes, the stock market is booming. But that one measure does not make everyone in the country in a better place. It makes us white rich people richer. Happier? Maybe. But I am not happy that my less-fortunate brethren do not have better lives and live in fear of the future. I am not happy that the environment puts all of our happiness at risk. I am not happy for... (scroll up for list!)
And onward about policy:
So what?? So he is President. of. the. United. States. Gaffes matter. Words matter. Rhetoric matters.
And it's not better to be the bully vs. the victim of bullying. (Giving the benefit of the doubt again. I've never had the sense that the U.S. has been bullied in all the many years I've been on Earth).
To be fair, my life is also better, in one way only. My brokerage account is singing. Yes, the upper-middle-class lives are better, because one thing that is improving in the U.S. is the stock market. Not necessarily the whole economy, because housing is struggling and wages have stalled, but the stock market is going up. As it has for 100 years. And as it will long after Trump is gone.
Am I happy my stock holdings are going up? Yes, of course. To be clear, I was also happy about that in just about every single year since I started investing in 1986, through 15 years of Republican Presidents and 18 years of Democrat. Yes, the stock market is going up. Let's go ahead and give that to Trump. Economists know that stock market changes are not really influenced by any President or his policies, but let's put that aside for now. Yes, the stock market is booming. But that one measure does not make everyone in the country in a better place. It makes us white rich people richer. Happier? Maybe. But I am not happy that my less-fortunate brethren do not have better lives and live in fear of the future. I am not happy that the environment puts all of our happiness at risk. I am not happy for... (scroll up for list!)
And onward about policy:
Not official party-line policies, but these personal habits, which one might call personal policies (He rarely deviates from these):
* His policy about making journalists "enemies of the state"
* His policy of degrading women
* His policy to bully and name-call his critics
* The policy of believing and falling in love with a brutal dictators, including one especially brutal dictator with nukes
* His hate-mongering
* His fear-mongering
* His dangerous rhetoric
* His policy of defending Nazis and White Nationalists and their sympathizers, going so far to call himself a "Nationalist."
* His policy to incite violence against his detractors
* His policies to act like a fascist dictator
* His hiding his tax status and his tax evasion over decades in cahoots with his father
* His policy to lie about everything in order to keep his base intentionally misinformed.
Which brings me to:
Trump's lies and the circular arguments
My friend, in the same thread, when I pointed to this list of all of the falsehoods surrounding Trump, responded:
Well Little Sister Resister, I am not a politifact fan, they are another source that has pledged committed to an agenda. And secondly even in this article they did not say he lied, they say this is a listing of false statement... two totally different things.(False Statements per wikipedia - "A false statement need not be a lie. A lie is a statement that is known to be untrue and is used to mislead. A false statement is a statement that is untrue but not necessarily told to mislead, as a statement given by someone who does not know it is untrue.")I know you may think this is a fine point and who cares, but it is a convenient fact that can support you either way you lean, if you don't like him, you see them as lies, if you like him... as i have commented before, that I find him careless with his language. He generalizes and exaggerates. I do not believe he lies. He boasts. Of course i wish he was more careful, but his intentions remain consistent. He's a definite optimist and sees things more positive than they really are, and blames the people that are not optimists (regardless of political affiliation) for the negativity in the world.
Let's take her second bit of thought first.
It's really unfathomable how anyone in this country can use this sort of argument to defend the most lying individual in government in America's history. Even if she distrusts the fact-checkers around the world, people close to the President and his own media mouthpiece agree, he lies, and he lies often.
But let's just give the benefit of the doubt, that he "just boasts." Boasting is harmful too. One can lose credibility quite quickly if one is prone to boasting. And when Trump "makes false statements," this is also un-Presidential. By the very definition that she cited, "A false statement is a statement that is untrue but not necessarily told to mislead, as a statement given by someone who does not know it is untrue." I submit that if any one person should strive to know the truth of the statements that he is about to make, then it is the President of the United States of America. And further, if he is informed that a statement he made was unfortunately -- and unknowingly -- false, then it is his DUTY to correct it!!
I challenge anyone to show my ONE example, just one, where he has backed out of a "false statement" and corrected himself.
Also, she calls Trump an "optimist" which is absolutely mind-boggling. He is one of the most fatalistic public personalities I can think of! Just look at this from the Washington Post: 'It doesn't matter.' 'We'll see.' The Trump Doctrine is sounding more fatalistic every day.
She apologizes for him also by saying he is "careless with his language." This, too, is an unacceptable trait in a President. Just plain unacceptable. I can't think of another President who was described as such. So even if we give him the benefit of the doubt that he "boasts" and is "careless with his language," or "tells falsehoods rather than lies," well, none of that is OK. A President is held to a higher standard. Our country is better than that.
Even if his buffoonery and "gaffes" were not all so full of lies and hate, he would still resemble reasonably presidential President like George W Bush (who we did not feel the need to protest in the streets about). But Trump is full of lies and hate. And I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt. He lies. Pure and simple. Pathological. And this is one big, BIG reason to hate him.
Let's look at his lies.
How about this doozy, from just yesterday? From Fortune magazine: 'The Greatest Idea I Think I’ve Ever Had.' Trump Repeatedly Boasts About a Vets Healthcare Law at Rallies. Obama Passed It in 2014
Here is a list of his false and misleading claims.
And here is another one.
And here is another one.
And even FAUX News has called him out on his lies.
But my friend and her friends are still act as apologists. And they don't seem to be interested in getting through the lies/false statements/boasts and finding the truth.
 |
| Steve Sack |
When she stated that the fact-checker Politifact is "has pledged committed to an agenda" I asked her what her sources for information are, how she strives to find the truth, and how she finds least-biased sources. She said she consumes "anything and everything." I pressed her to name some specific sources, and her response was:
PS Facebook, YouTube, Fox News, CNN, Airline magazine, Conversations with friends... And as I said above, when called to defend some of these ideas I searched the internet for the un-edited versions of the incidents mentioned.
This is interesting to me. And filled my understanding a bit more. Facebook and YouTube are not primary sources. In fact, they are some of the sources of some of the most false "information" available. Airline Magazine? I looked that up, and I could not find a news source called Airline Magazine. There are magazines available on airplanes. I think that may be what she means? Not exactly hard-hitting journalism there. And we know that FAUX News is an entertainment site, an unapologetic mouthpiece for the Right, and not at all a legitimate source. CNN is closer to being a good source. It's more factual, but biased to the left, and it's inflammatory and often speculative, especially in their 24-hour TV cycle with developing stories and talking head opinion pieces. "Conversations with friends," well, I'll let that sit. That's not a news source. There was crickets about my question about how she checks her sources. I asked her what she meant by "unedited versions." Did she mean going to original sources, less-biased sources? There was no answer.
I am beginning to understand that this lack of a desire to find the truth is a large part of the problem with the Right's apologist tendencies.
Another of her friends chimed in on this issue:
NSC We don't use fact checking sites that are basically left-leaning propaganda. That is why you like them....but that does not make them "the truth", any more or less than the sources we rely on are "the truth". The truth is hard to determine, don't be so arrogant that you believe you have the truth and we don't. All media is biased. Until you realize that, you will remain unaware of legitimate ideas and idealogies of the right. Many, if not all liberals I talk with have NO IDEA what we believe or why. They don't listen to what we say, just put up smoke screens and phony "fact check" excuses to make our points "illegitamate". I predict that this election AGAIN will baffle the left as the right wins on Nov 6.
I have no argument that every source is biased to some degree. Each writer is human, after all. But there is a difference between biased and factual. And indeed, there are sources that are least biased and most factual. I wanted to delve further into this and talk about bias, factual reporting, and fact-checking, but it got to be too much to do in this post. So, I will save this interesting topic and all my research for another post.
Thank you for sticking with me and reading all of this. It was cathartic for me to write. It was gratifying that my search for understanding has uncovered a few more stones. It has distracted me from the horrors and violence that befell our nation this week.
Thanks for reading, thanks for resisting. Now, let's get our go-to-votin' duds on and get to the polls!
RESIST! VOTE!
P.S. I've done something in this post that I've never done before in this blog in the last two years. The first one who can tell me what it is will get a coffee gift card from me!
No comments:
Post a Comment