Russian trolls are indeed a problem but this tendency of establishment liberals to throw around accusations whenever someone disagrees with them is a poor strategy to combat it. Their whole strategy revolves around sewing dysfunction in the body politic, and there is no better way to achieve it than to short circuit dialog this way. No, I am not a Russian troll but, if even if I were, calling me one just furthers their goals. This is a manifestation of one of the most critical failings of the liberal establishment in dealing with the Russian threat.
The fact that you don’t know what this very common phrase means suggests
I should have known better than to leave room for misinterpretation in a discussion with someone who longs to misinterpret. Imagine a discussion with a Republican where I responded to a comment on the boarder with the question “what the fuck is an illegal”? Would you assume that I don’t understand to whom they refer, or that I find the term misleading. Being “illegal” is an identity imposed by a broken system in the same way that being “no-name” is. The reason candidates have “no-name” is that they don’t get press, and they don’t get press because the neo-liberal consensus in mainstream media and both parties wants to keep them obscure. This goes back to the incestuous relationship between the elites in both parties and mainstream media.
Bloomberg missed the deadline to be on the New Hampshire ballot. As I said before, I am talking about candidates that met all of the requirements for ballot access, and were still denied. The rule changes I was referring to with Bloomberg were about access to the Democratic debates, not ballots.
No, I am not a Russian troll but, if even if I were, calling me one just furthers their goals. This is a manifestation of one of the most critical failings of the liberal establishment in dealing with the Russian threat.
The only way to combat Russian trolls is to not call them out? Come on, man, that was a more cogent string of words than the average provacateur but the reasoning behind it is still absolutely bonkers…unless you’re trying to help the trolls.
and they don’t get press because the neo-liberal consensus in mainstream media and both parties wants to keep them obscure
Conspiracy. Wake up, sheeple!
The rule changes I was referring to with Bloomberg were about access to the Democratic debates, not ballots.
Curious how you never specified that before lol
Much like you never specified that your claims of the DNC shenanigans were from Bermie’s run almost 10 years ago (and for context (which you also didn’t mention) was a disciplinary measure for Sanders staffers stealing data from Clinton).
The only way to combat Russian trolls is to not call them out?
That’s not what I said. Calling them out plays into their hands, but not doing so isn’t itself a strategy any more than not jumping on your opponent’s sword is a strategy. The actual strategy is to engage in good faith - even if you don’t think others do. Who knows, you might learn something.
Conspiracy. Wake up, sheeple!
Your reading comprehension needs practice. I said consensus, not conspiracy. Anyways, you know perfectly well that this exists between the RNC and Fox News, but it’s suddenly a “conspiracy theory” when it’s your guys. The press is supposed to be adversarial, but when did you last see a tough interview? It’s in small part a transactional thing, but it’s mostly just a culture perpetuating itself as cultures do. If you don’t realize this, your media literacy is adolescent at best.
Curious how you never specified that before lol
Curious how you keep using the word curious. What are you implying, and how is that not a distinction without a difference? It’s still the DNC changing the rules in midstream to favor a big donor.
Much like you never specified that your claims of the DNC shenanigans were from Bermie’s run almost 10 years ago
I referred to that instance earlier, so I provided that link. Did you think I was talking about Bernie’s 2024 run? That’s not a thing. I also provided links relevant to only the 2024 primary.
Russian trolls are indeed a problem but this tendency of establishment liberals to throw around accusations whenever someone disagrees with them is a poor strategy to combat it. Their whole strategy revolves around sewing dysfunction in the body politic, and there is no better way to achieve it than to short circuit dialog this way. No, I am not a Russian troll but, if even if I were, calling me one just furthers their goals. This is a manifestation of one of the most critical failings of the liberal establishment in dealing with the Russian threat.
I should have known better than to leave room for misinterpretation in a discussion with someone who longs to misinterpret. Imagine a discussion with a Republican where I responded to a comment on the boarder with the question “what the fuck is an illegal”? Would you assume that I don’t understand to whom they refer, or that I find the term misleading. Being “illegal” is an identity imposed by a broken system in the same way that being “no-name” is. The reason candidates have “no-name” is that they don’t get press, and they don’t get press because the neo-liberal consensus in mainstream media and both parties wants to keep them obscure. This goes back to the incestuous relationship between the elites in both parties and mainstream media.
Bloomberg missed the deadline to be on the New Hampshire ballot. As I said before, I am talking about candidates that met all of the requirements for ballot access, and were still denied. The rule changes I was referring to with Bloomberg were about access to the Democratic debates, not ballots.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/01/31/nevada-debate-dnc-drops-donor-threshold-making-way-bloomberg/4624996002/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/12/18/bernie-sanders-campaign-disciplined-accessing-clinton-data/77539432/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0lcBidnb34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXOtNJtjoow
The only way to combat Russian trolls is to not call them out? Come on, man, that was a more cogent string of words than the average provacateur but the reasoning behind it is still absolutely bonkers…unless you’re trying to help the trolls.
Conspiracy. Wake up, sheeple!
Curious how you never specified that before lol
Much like you never specified that your claims of the DNC shenanigans were from Bermie’s run almost 10 years ago (and for context (which you also didn’t mention) was a disciplinary measure for Sanders staffers stealing data from Clinton).
You are rapidly losing my trust.
That’s not what I said. Calling them out plays into their hands, but not doing so isn’t itself a strategy any more than not jumping on your opponent’s sword is a strategy. The actual strategy is to engage in good faith - even if you don’t think others do. Who knows, you might learn something.
Your reading comprehension needs practice. I said consensus, not conspiracy. Anyways, you know perfectly well that this exists between the RNC and Fox News, but it’s suddenly a “conspiracy theory” when it’s your guys. The press is supposed to be adversarial, but when did you last see a tough interview? It’s in small part a transactional thing, but it’s mostly just a culture perpetuating itself as cultures do. If you don’t realize this, your media literacy is adolescent at best.
Curious how you keep using the word curious. What are you implying, and how is that not a distinction without a difference? It’s still the DNC changing the rules in midstream to favor a big donor.
I referred to that instance earlier, so I provided that link. Did you think I was talking about Bernie’s 2024 run? That’s not a thing. I also provided links relevant to only the 2024 primary.
Uh, OK?
That didn’t happen.
And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was, that’s not a big deal. <— you are here
And if it is, that’s not my fault.
And if it was, I didn’t mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.