Zero coverage because they don't want you to have the info

[hollodero]

(05-22-2022, 06:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ehh, I wish I could agree with you.  Musk buys Twitter and the Dems turn on him.  He goes harder on them, basically calls that they will next label him a racist (which they did in the NY Times article) or a sexual predator, which leads us to the current example.  Do you really not find it at all suspicious that this woman's claims are just now surfacing?  Why now, why not a year after it happened?  Why not two years after it happened?  Why not three?  Six whole years ago it allegedly occurred, but it's just coming out now, now that Musk has gone all in against the Dems?  Way too big a coincidence for me to write it off.  I honestly wish we didn't live in a world that led me to these types of conclusions.

Yeah there's a lot I see differently. First off, I do not think Dems saw Twitter as their party tool, and I do also not perceive it as that clearly leftist echo chamber that censors conservative voices. We just disagree on that. Next off, I do not see the New York Times as beholden to the Democratic party, but rather as an opinionated newspaper doing opinionated newspaper things. And first and foremost, I think Musk gets painted as a sexual predator because there's an accusation. One that was settled in 2018, for 250.000 dollars. Doesn't necessarily mean he did as accused, but on the other hand, 250.000 dollars were paid and I have doubts that would just happen on any scam.

And finally, why it surfaced now? Well, someone dug it up. That has zero bearing on whether it happened or not, most importantly. It got dug up most likely by the media, most likely by left-leaning media, which will happen quite often as soon as someone turns to politics. His dirt gets dug up. I see no mystery there, and I see no evidence of Democratic wrongdoing aside from expectation that they would. But even if. The matter still was reported and settled.

(05-22-2022, 06:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The connection is that you're a bad guy, or a good guy, based almost entirely on how you help "X" party.  Musk is now perceived as a threat to the Dems, hence the treatment he has gotten of late.  I know you're not subjected to our media to the same degree that we are, but I'm honestly surprised you don't see it.  I mentioned the NY Times article on Musk that was a literal hit piece, just look at this Google search;


https://www.google.com/search?q=ny+times+article+on+elon+musk&tbm=nws&source=univ&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtjfaEiPT3AhVIJUQIHRAyDqEQt8YBegQIHhAF&biw=2560&bih=1336&dpr=1.5

Literally every single NYT article on Musk is deeply negative.  Contrast that to the largely positive press he got in the past, and not the distant past either.  The message is clear, toe the line or prepare to be smeared.

Overall, I don't disagree much with that. And the tone sure has turned negative towards Musk, and sure it's probably mainly because of politics. Part of it I find not so tragic, Musk himself played quite a part in the escalation, and using a term like "party of hate" and that's why I vote republicans now is intentionally controversial, especially for a guy that just bought/is buying Twitter (Dorsey didn't say that, and what would have happened if he had). It's no surprise there's blowback; The intensity and methods sure can be questioned. Similarly to case Trump.