GarrulousBrevity

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm surprised it got the first bullet point wrong, considering how spot in the second one is

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I was just stirring the pot, and I love this response

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (16 children)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Who are you calling an amateur, buddy? I can argue you under the table!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It'd feel good

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I guess 2000 was long enough ago to forget

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

If the dems ever sweep the house and senate, I hope they pass legislation

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

I mean, it's pulling from MBFC and ground news, which are not both owned by Dave Van Zandt, and he doesn't work alone. Also, when compared to other fact checking organizations, MBFC performs well, from what I've read. Well enough that if you find their output uncomfortable, you should be second guessing yourself.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

It's not really a bot's opinion though? It's reporting on salon in general, and letting you know that the reporting has a bias, which means generally, it might promote parts of the story that show Vance in a bad light compared to other reporting, and the. The Ground News link shows that reporting on this topic across several sources tends to be pretty non biased and factual. That's all good information to have, and saying otherwise means you want to let yourself be misled.

And everything other than joining the topic and the source is written by humans who are trying to keep people informed.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

If you're down voting a fact checker, you might want to do some self reflection on why you're upset that Salon doesn't have a perfect rating

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

That's what the article is about: how that change has pushed politicians to be open about their flaws and having much more public lives, like celebrities. Meaning that voters vote for politicians who act like celebrities. The sentiment in other comments of "No. No we don't." ignores the reality of who has been winning elections for the last 30 years.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I'm gonna guess there's a lot of down votes from people who just read the title...

The author points out the last 30 years of presidential candidates as their evidence, and paints a pretty nuanced picture of his politicians have dealt with changing voter trends. No one wants to vote for the candidate that doesn't act like that can ~~emphasize~~ empathize (glide typing failed me) with them, even though that's not really the president's job.

view more: next ›