Journalistic ethics means disclosing this sort of thing. It probably is good to point out, just so that norms don’t get completely forgotten, but, yeah, this shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Journalistic ethics means disclosing this sort of thing. It probably is good to point out, just so that norms don’t get completely forgotten, but, yeah, this shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Posting Stein’s tweet is a good burn, but not much more.
Applying Stein’s logic to herself: what did she do to “earn” David Duke’s endorsement? That’s easy: she backed Palestine over Israel. Even if a racist happens to agree, that doesn’t make that stance wrong.
I refuse to believe anyone is laughing at Rob Schneider.
I met someone with a “Man shall not lie with another man” tattoo.
That verse is literally the previous chapter to the “don’t get tattoos” verse. Why did he think one was important enough to get tattooed while ignoring the other?
He really chose to get that tattooed?!
There was no way a conversation with this guy would go well, so I’m going to be stuck with these questions forever.
When I look at the “pro Trump side” I see made up nonsense and impossible conspiracy theories. When I look at the anti Trump side I see videos of Trump talking.
The video on cancel looks like QVC. The “Trump Combat Knife” and banner promoting patriotaddictdeals.com just sum up the Republican party so well.
I go to Rallies with presidential candidates to listen to music and form my political opinions by listening to DJs.
Perhaps “nobody” is slight exaggeration. But I guarantee that more people would buy Girl Scout cookies for $5 than a mystery box for $200.
Nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like a Democrat.
Nobody just gives away $200, and buying a “mystery box” from an anonymous stranger is the same thing.
That looks so much like a scam. Granted, the line is paper thin.
Jesus Christ. Read whatever it was one more time, buddy.
a candidate should work to appeal to 100% of their voter base
Less a proposal and more of a fact: People won’t vote for a candidate who does not support the issues that they support. You can’t expect a voter who is against fracking to vote for a candidate who supports fracking.
If Kamala supports fracking and the majority of voters do not, it is up to her to change, not the voters.
i consider this a voter skill issue
Yeah… Democrats want to blame the voters so they can continue to court wealthy donors. If everyone in Michigan promises to “Vote Blue No Matter Who” then they can continue arming Israel without losing any Muslim votes. Unfortunately that’s not how things work.
What an odd question. As usual, Democrats won with a diverse voting bloc because the majority of white people voted for Republicans.
It took me about 20 seconds to find that 39% of white women voted for Obama. Why didn’t you research that before commenting?
I really am shocked that “White women vote for Republicans” is somehow surprising, but that drives home the point I’ve been making this whole time.
i mean that’s a fair statement, but she wouldn’t be running on fracking if she thought it was detrimental, so it’s either not a huge concern for most voters, or there is something more than being let on in the rhetoric here.
You’re begging the question here. If Democrats paid attention to their voters we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Generally, critics of Dem strategy believe that they are too beholden to wealthy donors.
Democrats blame Jill Stein for Clinton’s loss. But Dems can’t force her not to run again, or people not to vote for her. If Kamala doesn’t win, it will be because she didn’t convince enough people to vote for her, not because Jill Stein is running.
The signal to noise ratio is so low these days. There’s so much information out there but everyone wants to profit from you before you can get it. Even worse, the people with good information generally can’t buy as big a megaphone as the people who profit from lying to you.
Honestly, I think humans have been more likely to believe an easy lie than a hard truth all along, but it’s easier than ever these days.
I suspect it would be difficult to generate enough data to intentionally change a dataset. There are certainly little holes, like the glue pizza thing, but finding and exploiting them would be difficult and noticing you and blocking you as a data source would be easy.
Wait…you mean the “receipts” that prove my point? Ok.
Removed by mod
I like my Halloween candy like I like my coffee: without a penis.