Out of All the Irresponsible Actions...

[Dill]

(11-10-2020, 02:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Recognizing that people supported Trump for diverse reasons does not rule out, however, that his campaign and its media arm worked to create an alternative reality in which the Russia investigation and impeachment and pandemic were "hoaxes"--though they were not.  An environment in which more reputable news sources and military, scientific and medical authorities were all suspect, while Trump-endorsed crackpots like Dr. Atlas or Rudy Giuliani were not.  

Once again you present one side as indisputably correct and the other as the opposite.  This position is the opposite of nuanced or well considered when considered as presented.

No one familiar with your posting history would be surprised by this.  The problem is it presents nothing to convince other than your opinion.

Quote:The clash of alternative realities was abundantly clear in the final debate as Trump spewed baseless accusations that Biden had received "millions from Russia" and the like. All mystifying to "middle-of-the-road-types," but gospel truth those feasting on Hannity and Rush.

Ahh, this is an interesting statement, as it frames all who oppose Biden as wholesale believers in deep state conspiracies.  This isn't as subtle as you think. nor is it as effective.

Again, I find your response baffling. Are you disputing that the Trump Campaign and supporters at Fox characterized the Russia investigation, the impeachment, and the Pandemic as a "hoax"?  Are you claiming the "hoaxes" really were just hoaxes?  Where is the "nuance" between advancing Atlas over Fauci as the nation's Pandemic guide?

I see no premises refuted here, just impressions--my factual premises are "interesting" or not "convincing" or not "subtle." But they are simply left intact as factual claims. Dispute and refute if you think them wrong.

My "interesting statement" frames the president of the U.S. spewing baseless accusations. Did he do that or did he not? 

Stating what Trump ACTUALLY SAID during the debate does not automatically "frame all who opposed Biden as wholesale believers in deep state conspiracies." Though it does support my claim about the right wing media production of alternative reality. Or are you arguing that Trump's is not the alternative reality?   And I am not "effective" in arguing that a national leader who is unable or unwilling to distinguish between truth and rumor or not is a national problem? You remain unconvinced? 

Are disputing that large numbers of the PRESIDENT OF THE US's followers believe the conspiracies he touts? 
Are you disputing my claim that his conspiracy theories are false?