That’s the interview above. I haven’t had time to listen to it; it doesn’t matter what was said. It’s an unscripted, spontaneous conversation with one of the two major Presidential candidates. No one who understands elections and who believes in democracy should have any objection to it, fear it, or find its existence threatening in any way. And yet…here is the Harris-Walz campaign’s reaction:
Later, we got this:
Is there any way to excuse or justify such reactions? That is a rhetorical question: there is not.
No substance appears in either attack, just characterizations designed to de-legitimize an opponent based on bias, insults and smears. One side of a democratic election’s position is that the other side shouldn’t be able to make its positions known or engage in interviews, and that for a major media figure to give the opposing party’s candidate such a forum is somehow sinister. Moreover, the campaign that is making this frantic protest is basing its strategy on not revealing its own Presidential candidate’s positions or submitting to any unscripted appearances at all.
Musk invited Harris to have a similar conversation with him on Twitter, and she refused. Her campaign is ethically estopped from making this ridiculous and hypocritical claim, yet there it is.
“What’s going on here?” is the threshold question that begins any competent ethical analysis. Isn’t it blazingly clear what’s going on here?
And it isn’t just the Harris campaign taking this approach, it’s the entire Axis of Unethical Conduct (the “resistance,” the Democrats and the news media). Consider this exchange the White House’s paid liar had with Washington Post reporter Cleve Wootson:
Wootson: “One more : Elon Must is slated to interview Donald Trump tonight on “X”. I don’t know if the President is going to — feel free to say if he is or not — but I — I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue. It’s a — you know, it’s an America issue. What role does the White House or the President have any sort of stopping that or stopping the spread of that or sort of inter — intervening in that. Some of that was about campaign misinformation, but you know it’s a wider thing, right?”
[Me: Hilarious! He’s asking this of the same individual who insisted right up until Biden quit the race that her boss was solving Rubik’s Cube blindfolded, while he own paper participated in the cover-up of Biden’s crippling dementia!]
KJP: “Yeah, no, I mean, you’ve heard us talk about this many times from here about the responsibilities that social media platforms have when it comes to misinformation, disinformation. I don’t have anything to read out from here about specific ways that we’re working on it, but we believe that that they have the responsibility. These are private companies, so we’re also mindful of that too, but look — it is — I think it is incredibly important to call that out as you’re — you’re doing. I just don’t have any specifics on what we have been doing internally as it relates to the interviews, not something that I’m tracking, and I’m sure the President’s not tracking it either.”
The official position of the White House and the Democratic Party is that allowing the Republican Presidential candidate to talk about issues on social media is promoting “misinformation”!
Here’s another Axis pro-totalitarian hack at work, Axios’ Sarah Fisher on “X”: “ Musk will let Donald Trump speak all of the falsehoods & misinformation that he wants. I mean, he’s not a journalist … Does he want to be fact checking all the information? So I think it‘s just a platform for Trump to come out say whatever he wants.”
Oh no! A democracy can’t allow a Presidential candidate to actually say what he wants on a social media platform! What this propagandist is arguing is that only hostile and partisan “journalists” should be able to interview Trump, because they will actively seek to discredit him in the process as part of their mission. How many times have we heard Biden tell an interviewer that Trump said there would be a “bloodbath” if he loses without being “factchecked,” to cite one of many, many examples?
These people are literally, openly, trying to rig the election. That’s what is going on here. Even anti-Trump zealots who are genuinely committed to preserving democracy should be horrified and vote against the forces seeking to hold power using such totalitarian tactics. If they can’t figure that out, they are classic “useful idiots.”
Ethics Alarms 
Let’s talk about misinformation. Is the following true or misinformation: “The sun rises in the East and sets in the West.” ? It’s misinformation obviously, because the sun doesn’t rise or set; the earth turns.
VP Harris will probably just make canned statements from here to November and refuse ANY and ALL opportunities to speak in an extemporaneous format. Why would she do different? The Democratic Party doesn’t want her to speak, she doesn’t want to speak, most Democrats don’t care what she says or thinks – so long as she supports the unrestricted butchering of unborn babies – because they’re “blue no matter who”, and the media will simply provide her cover.
“Trump’s chat with Musk on X fact-checked“
I don’t know if I have ever seen a headline resembling anything like the following:
But then again, I don’t really tune into the news any more and Kamala doesn’t interview.
While those Harris/Walz statements make my blood boil, I will say that the desperation is palpable. The Democrats feel they are so close to that one-party rule, but everything they need to push across the finish line is crumbling to pieces. Donald Trump simply will not break under the stress, will not succumb to a bullet, will not be derailed by endless legal proceedings (many of which are falling apart, and the one actual conviction to date likely to be overturned on appeal), and somehow surges in the polls with every action taken against him. On the flip side, Biden’s mask slipped at a crucial moment, so he had to be jettisoned as the presidential candidate because there was simply no way he could win now. But the alternatives are dire: selecting Harris is likely to lead to defeat, but not selecting her would cause too many alliances to break, and would be even more likely to lead to defeat. They only thing they have now is to drum how great the Harris/Walz ticket is (while trying to elude all the history that have made them unattractive), while beating the “Trump Evil” slogan at every possible moment. The wheels have come off the Democratic bus. The only question is whether or not its momentum can somehow get it skidding and screeching across the goal line.
I agree, AND, Trump sounded so…. uh… just like a babbling idiot… It was hard to listen to and I finally turned it off after hearing the same thing over and over and over.
I get he’s a sloppy speaker, etc. and… I don’t think he’s fit to be president again. When Elon brought up government spending, he dodged that quick.
Anyway, too much to go into here… both sides are very disappointing and I agree the left is unhinged and revealing who they are by all their projections on who and what they say Trump and Kennedy are.
It’s fascinating to watch.
So vote for Kamala.
For Democrats, it used to be “the rich” that were a plague on society. Now it’s just the rich that don’t follow in lockstep with the Democrat ideology that are the plague. Good to know.
I see this “Project 2025” referenced that is causing the Left to wet their pants. Parenthetically, President Biden may wet his pants, but Project 2025 is not the cause there. Anyways, I don’t really know what Project 2025 is, but how is that any more or less an “agenda that the Right will jam down the throats of the Left” than the Green New Deal is an “agenda that the Left will jam down the throats of the Right?” I guess I would say to the Left…when you sow the wind…
Finally, it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that the CEO of X “cannot run a livestream in 2024”, since it was Left-wing hackers who attempted, using DDOS attacks, to disrupt the livestream and silence speech with which they disagreed. If Right-wing hackers wanted to demonstrate that Democrats “cannot run a livestream in 2024”, they could also do so with minimal effort.
Ryan is right. The whole thing is petty and desperate. Kamala Harris is flat-out afraid to do an extemporaneous interview. She’s just lucky her party, Democrats themselves, and the media are perfectly fine with a malleable child at the top of the ticket.
I don’t understand this ‘Project 2025’ hysteria. How does
Heritage Foundation Whitepaper = Trump Policy Statement?
Is Trump even on good terms with the Heritage Foundation? They seem like the people who would at least be closeted anti-Trumpers.
The Project 2025 hysteria is a continuation of the false “Handmaidens’ Tale” narrative that wants to paint all conservatives, including Trump – pillar of piety and morality that he is – hell-bent (pardon the expression) on turning the U.S. into a Christian theocracy that forces all women to become pregnant (because they don’t like abortion), murder all homosexuals and, because conservative Christians are all white supremacists, too (apparently), throw blacks back in literal chains, etc. You get my drift.
Trump appeared not to have known anything about the Heritage Foundation until this hullaballoo started. He has claimed to have since looked it over, agrees with some things, disagrees with others. Nevertheless, the story is continually that Trump is being controlled by the Heritage Foundation and that he will implement Project 2025 as part of his theocratic dictatorship…or something.
It’s all they’ve got, really.
So, Trump and Vance are doing interviews with hostile interviewers
Trump and Vance are doing rallies that have different scripts each time.
Trump does several hours of discussion about policies with Elon Musk on X in front of over a million people… unscripted.
Harris/Walz does at least 4 rallies with the same script.
Harris says she wants to do an interview with the press ‘before the end of the month’.
Harris refuses to go to the Black Journalist meeting where she could give her message on the same stage as Trump despite promoting herself as…black.
Harris keeps screaming that Trump won’t debate, when she won’t commit to debates.
Harris/Walz are faking the size of their crowds and lying about Walz’s lying about his military record (they just pulled the Command Sergeant Major off the campaign website).
What do the Democrats do? They try to shut down X with an illegal DDOS. They organize a boycott demanding that Musk ban Trump from X again. They claim that Trump’s talk on X is illegitimate somehow.
What have the Republicans done that is similar? Well, OK, there is the….welll.
Can someone tell me if the newspaper article about Tim Walz having his stomach pumped because of over-consumption of horse semen is a hoax? Please tell me it is a hoax. I mean, I want to believe that it has to be a hoax, but then I found out that a respected BBC zoologist was just convicted or raping about 40 dogs to death…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRifKEf0xr8
I am completely serious about this Tim Walz horse semen thing as a hoax. Does anyone know if those newspaper clippings are real or fake? Please tell me you know for sure it is a fake.
i think the issue is that Trump spreads so much disinformation that it’s bad for the country and for his followers who believe him
But what if I WANT disinformation? I WANT disinformation like the 70+ random, controlled studies that showed that masks don’t slow the spread of viral diseases. I WANT disinformation like that Kamala Harris was the ‘Border Czar’. I WANT disinformation like the reports that Biden was in severe mental decline. I WANT disinformation that shows me that the monthly jobs reports are getting corrected each month and the corrected numbers are terrible. I WANT disinformation like Hunter Biden’s laptop(s). I WANT disinformation showing that the Trump-Russia collusion story was a hoax.
It is only bad for ‘the country’ if you believe the ruling elite count as ‘the country’. Remember, “Pravda” means ‘Truth’. Anything that contradicts ‘Pravda’ is disinformation.
That’s an odd thing to want but it still doesn’t change the fact that disinformation should be challenged, especially when it’s spread by someone like Trump
I don’t think you actually read my reply. If you did, you have been brainwashed by the ‘disinformation’ propaganda. If you actually read the post, you would have noticed that every piece of ‘disinformation’ that I listed was actually true. The ‘official truth’ in each of those cases was actually a blatant, intentional lie. I am hoping that you just skimmed my reply without reading carefully because if you think that wanting to know the truth is an odd thing to want…
Yeah, she needs to answer this question.
Whoa, wait: this is perilously close to a disqualifying statement. MR clearly (I thought, maybe his irony confused you?) was pointing out that what he was calling “disinformation” were all facts that were misrepresented as non-facts by the same individuals and organizations calling Trump’s statements “disinformation.” “Disinformation” may be a “real thing,” but who decides what it is and when? The Hunter Biden laptop was literally declared ‘disinformation” by US intelligence officials and the news report about the laptop was embargoed by the news media as “disinformation” when it was, if fact, NOT. MR says that he wants to know and learn about what censors and partisans are calling “disinformation” because it frequently is something else: TRUE.
Disinformation” may be a “real thing,” but who decides what it is and when?
I think whoever is presenting/hosting/platforming/publishing/reporting etc the misinformation should be in charge of pointing out that it is not factual.
Comments being mislabelled as disinformation when it isn’t is a problem, but that’s not a reason to not label Trump’s comments as misinformation when we see it
I think whoever is presenting/hosting/platforming/publishing/reporting etc the misinformation should be in charge of pointing out that it is not factual.
Michael R just pointed out how that is a disingenuous position and why.
Just because there are bad faith actors doesn’t mean it should be abandoned.
I don’t find that argument persuasive.
I don’t care if it’s persuasive, it’s true. A system that cannot be counted upon to be fair and unbiased can’t be trusted. The evidence is that none of them can be trusted. Advocating an impossible solution as if it is practical isn’t honest or ethical. I don’t trust third parties to decide what I can read or hear, and neither should you.
I don’t care if it’s persuasive, it’s true.
Sorry, but an opinion like this one can’t be “true”
A system that cannot be counted upon to be fair and unbiased can’t be trusted. The evidence is that none of them can be trusted. Advocating an impossible solution as if it is practical isn’t honest or ethical.
If you don’t comprehend that this is true, then you lack the necessary skills to participate here.
Third parties decide what your read and hear all the time. And I’m not even arguing for that so I’m not sure where you got that from.
I trust that people in charge of these platforms are able to fact check properly. I dont share in your mistrust of “institutions” I think that leads to people not knowing what’s even true or not.
You’re free to disagree with that notion.
“Third parties decide what your read and hear all the time.” Ethics 101. That doesn’t mean that this is right, acceptible or trustworthy.
“I trust that people in charge of these platforms are able to fact check properly.”
Then you’re a gullible fool. The fact that they don’t has been proven repeatedly. (And “properly’ tends to mean “to fit a pre-determined bias or agenda).
I don’t share in your mistrust of “institutions.”
See above. The institutions have proven themselves untrustworthy beyond a shadow of a doubt, journalism particularly. If you don’t share in the distrust, then you are not paying attention.
I think that leads to people not knowing what’s even true or not.
Ya think? That’s exactly what it leads to, but that’s the fault of the institutions, not those betrayed by them.
A system that cannot be counted upon to be fair and unbiased can’t be trusted. The evidence is that none of them can be trusted. Advocating an impossible solution as if it is practical isn’t honest or ethical.
If you don’t comprehend that this is true, then you lack the necessary skills to participate here.
No I don’t think it’s true since there is no “system” and this just reeks of anti-establishment nonsense where you don’t trust anything.
But ok, sure let’s do nothing then. Good solution.
I have never said “do nothing.” What has must be done is to reform the corrupted systems. To do that, you have to realize that it isn’t functioning properly.
“Third parties decide what your read and hear all the time.” Ethics 101. That doesn’t mean that this is right, acceptible or trustworthy.
Doesn’t mean it’s wrong either, I’m just pointing out reality to you
“I trust that people in charge of these platforms are able to fact check properly.”
Then you’re a gullible fool
Oh, well fuck you then!
There’s a reason to be cautious for sure but not to the insane level you’ve reached where you don’t trust in any institution, ever.
Oh, well fuck you then!
What a trenchant response!
Trusting in the various platforms’ efforts at self-policing and censorship is wilful blindness, and wilful blindness is foolish. Don’t get offended: learn. That’s why this blog is here.
It’s not disinformation if it’s true Mike.
That is the biggest lie I have been told this week, perhaps this year. Didn’t you see all the examples. They were all labelled as ‘disinformation’, but they were all true. Disinformation is merely a fact that disagrees with an authority. I am not an NPC just following my programming.
They shouldn’t have been labeled as disinformation then.
I’m talking about actual disinformation, which I assume you acknowledge is real
‘Disinformation’ is a buzzword like ‘natural’. ‘
Saying ‘actual’ disinformation is like saying ‘actual natural decaffeination’. *
*’Natural’ decaffeination uses supercritical carbon dioxide to extract the caffeine. Because if nature was going to remove the caffeine, that is how nature would do it.
Mmm not sure what you mean. Disinformation is a real thing and I only said “actual” since you seemed confused about what actual disinformation is vs what’s true.
Whoa, wait: this is perilously close to a disqualifying statement. MR clearly (I thought, maybe his irony confused you?) was pointing out that what he was calling “disinformation” were all facts that were misrepresented as non-facts by the same individuals and organizations calling Trump’s statements “disinformation.” “Disinformation” may be a “real thing,” but who decides what it is and when? The Hunter Biden laptop was literally declared ‘disinformation” by US intelligence officials and the news report about the laptop was embargoed by the news media as “disinformation” when it was, if fact, NOT. MR says that he wants to know and learn about what censors and partisans are calling “disinformation” because it frequently is something else: TRUE.
Ugh. The point is that it is often impossible to know what “disinformation” and “misinformation” are, and in that it is no different from just “information.” This is like saying “Believe the science” when science is open to interpretation and dissent. Was the made-up “social distancing” requirement pulled out of the air by the CDC science, misinformation, or just a place-holding theory? If I said (and I did) that “social distancing” outside was hooey, was I flagging misinformation, or spreading it?
The point is that it is often impossible to know what “disinformation” and “misinformation”
That’s not true. For example, Trump’s statement that Harris AI’d her crowd was easily proven to be misinformation. This is a perfect example of a comment from Trump that can be labeled as such.
If I said (and I did) that “social distancing” outside was hooey, was I flagging misinformation, or spreading it.
I’m not sure what “hooey” means but some claims can be challenged and eventually be proven wrong. This is fine and what an open society should aim for.
I’m talking about misinformation that has no basis in reality, like saying Harris AI’d her crowd.
It was good that you flag things as misinformation…that is what I am arguing for. More flagging of misinformation.
Again, the best you can come up with is a trivial challenge of crowd figures (Trump has a thing with crowds). That’s atangential, meaningless dispute having no effect at all. I asked for ten substantive examples. And they are?
Again, the best you can come up with is a trivial challenge of crowd figures (Trump has a thing with crowds). That’s atangential, meaningless dispute having no effect at all. I asked for ten substantive examples. And they are?
What do you mean the best I can come up with? Best regarding what?
Also, it wasn’t trivial because Trump was claiming her campaign used AI to generate the crowd. This is a very important distinction vs what you keep claiming he said.
It absolutely has an effect on the voters and how they view the Harris campaign.
I didn’t see you asked for 10 substantive examples. But if you don’t even consider this to be one, then the exercise isn’t worth my time.
Also, why do you want me to do this?
Because, so far, I see no evidence that you are doing anything but relaying the pre-packaged partisan claims of others.
If Trump or anyone makes a claim that can be proven false, then that always reflects poorly on the accuser. Nonetheless, accusation back and forth about crowd size are trivial, because what they involve is trivial. Who cares how many people came? On the other hand, the White House spokesperson claiming AI was used to make Biden look old and disoriented is substantive, and an effort to hide crucial information from the public.Similar false statements, but not within miles of each other in significance and potential harm.
I think you’re confused.
Trump said Harris used artificial intelligence and created fake people and inserted them into a photo. He said you could see no one was there at all based on the reflection in the fuselage of the airplane.
The issue is that Trump – though he communicates poorly and shows no sign of improving – is telling people what the Democrats and their allies in the news media don’t want people to hear and so they label it disinformation/misinformation to confuse their own followers.
I don’t trust the government to decide what information I do and don’t need to know.
a good recent example is when Trump was spreading the false statement that Harris “AI’d” her crowd even though you could go on Instagram or X and find tons of other videos showing the actual crowd from different angles, find videos of people in the actual crowd, etc.
i went on X and then saw other people claiming the same thing. So when Trump says it, it gives it more credibility even if it’s totally inaccurate. So his followers start to also believe complete falsehoods and conspiracy theories
Speaking as someone who would prefer everyone (but especially politicians) to speak clearly, precisely, and with conscientious epistemology… disinformation is as disinformation does.
It sounds like you are more concerned about the potential consequences of Trump making statements that are less than literally accurate than about the potential consequences of Trump’s opponents making statements that are less than literally accurate.
To address the problem of disinformation, I plan to teach people practical epistemology. Most people think that epistemology is about finding trusted sources, but in my experience that causes conflicts to degenerate into appeals to authority and well-poisoning fallacies.
Applied epistemology is about what we’re willing to risk being wrong about. It’s about what we’re prepared to do when our assumptions turn out to be wrong. It’s about making plans that don’t rely on something being true or false, if there’s that much doubt about it. Alternatively, we can set up tests that tell us what’s true for our purposes.
For example, I don’t believe in ghosts. If I ever move into a haunted house, I guess I’ll find out if I’m right. If I’m wrong, I’ll want to figure out how to use the existence of ghosts for the benefit of society. I don’t have a vested interest in convincing anyone that ghosts don’t exist. If I think an inaccurate belief in ghosts will cause problems (like spending lots of money on an exorcist for mysterious creaking), then I’ll investigate options for proceeding that don’t cause those problems (like trying mundane solutions for the creaking first), even if those options don’t resolve the question of ghosts existing.
How does that sound?
what specific disinformation are we discussing? I can list a number of approved disinformation points promoted by Biden and others
examples include: Trump is an existential threat to democracy, our democracy will end if Trump is elected, Trump is in Putin’s pocket, the laptop is Russian disinformation, masks are proven to stop the virus, the jab will prevent you from getting or transmitting the virus, MAGA supporters are right wing extremists, Trumps agenda is project 2025, Roe being overturned denies rights to women, abortion is healthcare, promoting transient children is gender affirming care. Hate speech is not protected under the first amendment. And I have only scratched the surface.
Your turn
I listened to most of the discussion (prior to the event, Elon drew a distinction between “interview” and “discussion” and promised the latter) and I believe it lived up to description. After the 45 minute DDOS attack (I’m skeptical that was the cause but have no expertise of such things – just found it odd that Twitter was working fine, but for the much hyped “ElonXTrump Space”, the discussion began without any further glitches.
I think Elon’s distinction was wise as it removed the inherent conflict, however muted it may have been, baked into an interview where one party is deemed under the microscope. What we got was a freewheeling discussion between two highly prominent people with interesting points of view. No “gotcha” questions, no effort to score points, just an open and honest discussion. I enjoyed it. My one gripe is that Trump dominated much of it (as he is wont to do) but things opened up a bit towards the end and we heard more from Elon.
Contrary to press reports, they did not agree on everything; most things, but not all, and that’s perfectly fine. Also, Trump had a few hilarious off the cuff moments such as:
Despite what was a perfectly normal discussion (just like the “perfect call”) this is how the press has been framing it: https://x.com/AutismCapital/status/1823359175403204957
Meh, I listened to some of it and got bored. I think “rambling” is a fine descriptor. Elon isn’t a good interviewer, it’s definitely a learned skill
I wouldn’t argue against any of that. It was rambling and I just put it on in the background while doing other things. As for Elon’s interview skills, you’re right, but it didn’t bother me. I went into it expecting a loose discussion and that’s what I heard. As for the discussion itself, I think Greg Gutfeld had the most substantive read:
https://x.com/greggutfeld/status/1823178323893408125
By way of contrast: https://x.com/ForAmerica/status/1823183605465534472
That’s your example of a substantive bit of “misinformation” that should be regulated and censored? Is a single person going to vote based on what size Harris’s crowd was, or how big Trump says it was? On the other hand, the President’s press secretary said the the videos showing Biden looking frozen, lost or confused were “fakes” when she knew damn well they weren’t. Biden keeps saying that Trump claimed white supremacists were fine people and that he promised a blood bath if he wasn’t elected. Those are substantive lies by Trump’s opponents that would be libelous or slanderous in a non-political context. Biden said he lowered inflation in 2021. He said his administration developed the Wuhan Virus vaccine. He said no servicemen have died during his administration. Unlike bickering over crowd size, these and more genuinely misinform the public over substantive issues.
The main misinformation is that Trump’s various exaggerations, misstatements and puffery are uniquely voluminous and damaging and that the current Democratic cabal—including the news media— doesn’t engage in as much or worse. Fine, call Trump on his genuine misrepresentations, but don’t pretend it’s just Trump who “lies all the time.” THAT’s misinformation calculated to deceive.
Well, Cici? What’s your instruction manual say on what talking points to use to counter Jack’s points?
It’s not the most substantive bit of misinformation, just the most recent since it only happened a few days ago.
It doesn’t need to be censored per se, but challenged since it breeds confusion, misinforms voters, and meant to deceive. Absolutely it should be challenged.
All misinformation should be challenged even Biden’s, but especially Trump’s since he does it so regularlly and recklessly. He spreads misinformation more than any other major politician currently.
This highlights one aspect that Holly Mathnerd called out some months ago. There seem to be two main camps who look at Donald Trump: those who take him seriously, but not literally, and those who take him literally, but not seriously. Everyone going into conniptions over Trump’s alleged lies, or even worse, the Newspeak “misinformation” he allegedly peddles, work themselves into a lather because they take Trump literally, but not seriously. In other words, they are entirely focused on the hard definition of the words he uses instead of paying attention to what Trump is really saying.
Trump speaks in hyperbole, exaggeration, opinion, and speculation. For people to misunderstand that, and take what he says absolutely literally (whether you support him or are ardently against him) misses the points he is actually making. To say that Trump recklessly spreads misinformation all the time, and moreso than any other current politician, is risible. Biden’s lies far outweigh anything Trump has done, and what we continue to find is more people lie about Trump’s supposed lies and alleged criminal actions than Trump could possibly dish out in two lifetimes.
Ok, this is just regurgitating talking points, Cici. I reviewed, for example, the Washington Post’s alleged database of Trump” lies and found that the vast majority were not lies at all by the standards applied to other people and politicians. This statement: sets off my bias and ethics alarms: “All misinformation should be challenged even Biden’s, but especially Trump’s…” because you are advocating a double standard. Put any other word in that sentence in place of “misinformation” and it’s a blatant appeal to double standards.
Read the “Big Lies of the Resistance” and get back to me. Or list what you consider Trump’s ten worst lies, and I’ll give you ten as bad or worse by another politician—Bill or Hillary, Pelosi, Obama, Harris while showing that not all of what you are calling Trump misinformation really qualifies as that at all. If you are just saying “He spreads misinformation more than any other major politician currently” because that’s what people you read and talk to and watch on TV say, then I’d recommend dropping out of this conversation. You’re over your head.
A double standard would be arguing Biden shouldn’t be challenged as much as Trump. I didn’t say that.
Both should be challenged but Trump absolutely spreads more misinformation than Biden. That was my only point.
Both should be challenged but Trump absolutely spreads more misinformation than Biden.
And again, that’s just a standard DNC talking point. Biden’s lies are not flagged as such like Trump’s are. After the disastrous debate, the defense was that Biden “had a bad night” and Trump lied. Biden lied plenty, when he could be understood. That was typical.
that’s just a standard DNC talking point.
Who cares. Why does this matter. Doesn’t make it not true. This isn’t an argument.
Biden’s lies are not flagged as such like Trump’s are.
Well they should be! And I read an article after the debate that called out Trump AND Biden’s lies. Pretty sure it was on CNN.
“A double standard would be arguing Biden shouldn’t be challenged as much as Trump. I didn’t say that.”
You literally DID say that. This is what “especially” means. If I say, “take good care of my son and daughter, especially my son,” I am saying that I view taking care of my son as more important and higher priority than taking care of my daughter.
Well I’m telling you that that is not what I meant.
I read it that was at first as well, but now I realize the intended interpretation was probably, “All misinformation should be challenged, but I’m more concerned about the consequences of failing to challenge Trump’s misinformation than failing to challenge Biden’s misinformation.”
That’s a perfectly valid use of the word “especially.”
Cici: I think the scariest things about Trump are 1) some of his supporters (typical for a politician), and 2) what we’ve been told about his supporters. I’m in favor of making it clear that although Trump is willing to pander to sections of his base that (in addition to having legitimate problems they expect him to help with), may be rather closed-minded, that doesn’t mean we need to tolerate any bigoted actions or policies that those sections may be inclined towards.
For all Trump’s character flaws, I don’t think he himself is particularly bigoted. Amazingly, he seems fairly open-minded about issues, even if he fails to indicate he has any sort of nuanced approach to addressing them.
As usual, I prefer to turn the discussion away from which politicians we distrust more than others, and towards what outcomes we hope for and what outcomes we fear. We can deal with the politicians once we’ve worked that out. What actions do we fear Trump and his appointees will take, and what are the expected outcomes of those actions that lead us to fear them?
I think your tendency to lean over backwards to give someone the benefit of the doubt works against you here.”I read it that was at first as well, but now I realize the intended interpretation was probably, “All misinformation should be challenged, but I’m more concerned about the consequences of failing to challenge Trump’s misinformation than failing to challenge Biden’s misinformation.”
Really? It is more important to challenge Trump claiming Harris’s crowd was smaller than it was than to challenge a demented President claiming that he’s fit as a fiddle? That the economy is in great shape and its just everyone’s imagination that they can’t afford anything? That the US unequivocally supports Israel while it pressures Israel into a cease fire?
Having had many exchanges with CiCi, I see no evidence that she is a objective and nuanced as you give her credit for.
Leaning over backwards to give someone the benefit of the doubt costs me very little and is more effective at building mutual understanding and respect, to the point that I learn how best to address other people’s concerns without compromising my own values, and other people are willing to listen to my concerns in turn.
I can see that some people would be afraid that Trump’s false statement about Harris’s crowd would make it harder for Harris to defeat Trump in the presidential election. They’re not afraid of the Democrats’ deceit because the Democrats say all the right words to signal that they want to protect those people from the scary Republicans. Any lies are mistakes, or inconsequential, or merely what it takes to get others to realize how important stopping the scary Republicans is.
Do these people have an accurate picture of the present or future? Not in this context, no. However, their fear is still part of their reality, based on their experiences and how well positioned they are to handle problems. Addressing their fear comes before correcting their picture, not the other way around. You want someone to admit you’re right? You have to address their fear of what happens if they’re wrong.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party does absolutely nothing to seem less scary to those people, because they don’t know how to do that without alienating the reliable segments of their voter base who are a) dogmatic, b) crony capitalist, or c) warped by the idea that mere hard work is necessary and sufficient to overcome any conundrum or environmental obstacle, and if it doesn’t work you’re not using enough of it because you’re lazy.
Until I came along, as far as I can tell nobody put any effort into integrating the virtues of the conservatives and the progressives into something more constructive than both. That’s the only thing that will get us out of this mess, which is why I’ve done it and why I’m taking it to depolarizing organizations so that we can take conflict reconciliation to the next level.
You have to be joking
I don’t know about the DDOS truth, but I can tell you what I witnessed.
There were 1.7 million people logged in the ‘Space’ at the start time. Then, they started dropping. It dropped down to under 200,000. Musk announced they were experiencing a DDOS and BitDefender seems to have indicated the largest current attack in the world going on near Musk’s X-servers and that X was undergoing an attack. About 10 minutes after the announcement, the number grew again to 1.3 million and stayed pretty constant for an hour or so. People started dropping off after an hour and It was at 1.2 million by the time I stopped paying attention about 1.5 hours in.
So, I can’t confirm it is true, but it did look consistent with a DDOS attack and 3rd party people reported it being attacked.
So…likely true.
Just an observation: After an afternoon of tending my (arguably) World Class Heirloom Tomatoes, I log on to find a veritable…um…trough of comments posted by the newest EA (IMO) TROLT.
All the sealionesque circular trolling made my head hurt.
PWS