PLAVAT🧿S

I couldn’t stomach watching that first debate, so I wasn’t sure if you were messing around.

You were not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUtVNEl9aJE

Yeah, this is just down there with the right making fun of Kamala’s laugh.

That reminds me of the Obama/Romney debate

Yeah, definitely a double standard on mic control. Any time he opened his mouth they turned his mic on, she tried once and they did a hard pass. Hell, even while they refuted his dog eating claims his mic was on talking over the moderator.

And that’s because all of the media loves Trump. They have a bias, sure, but they know the crazy shit he says sells views/headlines and that’s their business, informing the public is a byproduct.

I hate to agree but I don’t think you’re wrong, and accept the down votes in advance. She did some things well though, the trolling on rallies was actually her sneakiest trick to rattle him. I think she could’ve performed better but maybe she learned some lessons for a second debate.

Overall I think there was a double standard on mic control, whenever he wanted to talk they let him. He even got to speak during fact checks, what the fuck is that? On the flip side, they didn’t unmute her on rebuttals and he made a point to tell her to shut up if she spoke over him.

FWIW I didn’t down vote you, but I don’t think all malice is equal. Driving with a heart condition or narcolepsy and killing someone isn’t the same as driving through a crowd to get revenge.

Yeah, I just don’t see the comparison the OP made here. I’m willing to relent that Britain has done more harm than good to India but I’m no expert so I’d defer to someone smarter here.

But the even crazier thing is that the article isn’t even talking about famine caused by the British Raj… No, they’re saying Churchill was the aggressor and Hitler was pushed into a fight he didn’t want. And the craziest part is the statement that the concentration camps were mercy kills to prevent starvation.

Looked it up, referring to this?

Churchill’s policies to blame for millions of Indian famine deaths, study says

I think the major difference here is malice. Did Churchill set out cause these deaths or was it greed and/or stupidity? Honest question worth discussion, I haven’t heard of this prior.

I don’t normally reply with something so blunt but this is a pretty shitty comment. This kind of half speak rhetoric is a major issue causing misinformation and its usage is far too pervasive.

And I’m not even saying you’re wrong but if you want to prove the point the burden is on you.

I don’t think it bodes well she sat with Putin at a conference, whether there was “language barriers” or not.

Saying the article is old is like saying don’t bring up Reaganomics… the impacts are still being felt, there’s still relevance.

And I linked it to suggest that these fringe candidates are still being picked and losing, perhaps as a long term effect of the strategy.

They may have had help:

https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

Do you remember pre-mass-adoption of the internet? These headlines remind of the hoax/canned spam emails, like the, “forward this on to 50 people or a loved one will die” type stuff.

Back then idiot friends would occasionally sign in to AOL from dial up and send those to me. Decades later we’ve turned the hoax email “To: field” into an “@” soap box that reaches thousands and echoes far quicker. I think we used to be blissfully ignorant and much less influenced back then. I miss that version of my mom, the one that didn’t think masks are satanic rituals.

E: I don’t want to come off as head in the sand, old ways are the best… I’ve developed a much better world view since the internet came along and that’s a good thing.