Trump is the Real DEI Candidate

[Marener]

“Democracies around the world now are struggling with the absence of a sort of truth arbiter, and there’s no one who defines what facts really are.”

That is a direct quote. It is pretty clear that if Democracies are “struggling” without some sort of “truth arbiter”, he is suggesting that one is needed. Surely, even you can understand this. The attendees at the WEF certainly did.



So now all of a sudden context is important. Funny. What context would make what Kerry said more palatable to those of us that cringe at the mention of a “truth arbiter” potentially assisting with Democracies that are “struggling”?

When Kerry says what he thinks we should do, then you can criticize. It’s pretty clear that we do suffer because of the perpetuation of disinformation. Nothing he said was inaccurate.

Now, who has Kerry said should be investigated? Did he say that broadcast licenses should be revoked?

 

[DBA]

If that’s all Trump was saying, why does he call for an investigation and call it potentially “illegal”?

You are very good at morphing Trump’s statement into something different and more palatable to yourself. It’s proof of your extreme bias.

CBS favorably editing Kamala’s interview was an attempt to hide her incompetency from the American people, thereby, harming Trump in the upcoming election. How is that any different than Fox saying unproven things about Dominion? Maybe you haven’t figure out that lying by omission is real thing.

If you were really intellectually curious, you would look for Harris’ un-edited interview. It may give you pause in electing her as the leader of the free world.

 

[DBA]

When Kerry says what he thinks we should do, then you can criticize. It’s pretty clear that we do suffer because of the perpetuation of disinformation. Nothing he said was inaccurate.

Now, who has Kerry said should be investigated? Did he say that broadcast licenses should be revoked?

He is suggesting that a “truth arbiter” would resolve these problems. You can spin it all you would like, but that is scary.

 

[Marener]

CBS favorably editing Kamala’s interview was an attempt to hide her incompetency from the American people, thereby, harming Trump in the upcoming election. How is that any different than Fox saying unproven things about Dominion? Maybe you haven’t figure out that lying by omission is real thing.

If you were really intellectually curious, you would look for Harris’ un-edited interview. It may give you pause in electing her as the leader of the free world.

Because Fox was defaming dominion promoting a civil lawsuit.

I’m still dying to know what could possibly be illegal and require an investigation of CBS?

 

[Marener]

He is suggesting that a “truth arbiter” would resolve these problems. You can spin it all you would like, but that is scary.

And that’s true! If we had a truth arbiter, it would help prevent disinformation. He also said we can’t have one because of the first amendment. He’s clearly speaking hypothetically.

Context! Don’t be dangerous. He never said anything about repealing the first amendment to criminalizing speech.

 

[DBA]

And that’s true! If we had a truth arbiter, it would help prevent disinformation. He also said we can’t have one because of the first amendment. He’s clearly speaking hypothetically.

Context! Don’t be dangerous. He never said anything about repealing the first amendment to criminalizing speech.

Your gullibility is damning.

 

[Marener]

Your gullibility is damning.

Well, let’s think about the differences here.

Kerry isn’t running for office. Trump is. I’m not voting for Kerry. You’re voting for Trump.

Trump has clearly stated on several occasions he wants government imposed repercussions for news organizations. Kerry has, at worse, implied something about combating disinformation.

And I’m the problem?

 

[yidnar]

CBS favorably editing Kamala’s interview was an attempt to hide her incompetency from the American people, thereby, harming Trump in the upcoming election. How is that any different than Fox saying unproven things about Dominion? Maybe you haven’t figure out that lying by omission is real thing.

If you were really intellectually curious, you would look for Harris’ un-edited interview. It may give you pause in electing her as the leader of the free world.

i8t wont give him pause .. he's a member of the progressive cult ..

 

[DBA]

Kerry isn’t running for office. Trump is. I’m not voting for Kerry. You’re voting for Trump.

Kerry isn't the only one. He is just one of yhe higher profile Democrats, along with Hillary, that said the quiet part out loud. Obviously, some of reached the point of indocrination when even saying it out loud has no effect.

Kerry has, at worse, implied something about combating disinformation.

At worst? Yeah he implied that without an Arbiter of Truth Democracies will continue to struggle. That's pretty bad to people who value free speech freedom.

 

[Marener]

Kerry isn't the only one. He is just one of yhe higher profile Democrats, along with Hillary, that said the quiet part out loud. Obviously, some of reached the point of indocrination when even saying it out loud has no effect.

As already discussed, you took Clinton’s statement out of context. Criminal charges were for foreign governments interfering in our political discourse. It’s what got the people with Tenet media in trouble. Do you support that?

At worst? Yeah he implied that without an Arbiter of Truth Democracies will continue to struggle. That's pretty bad to people who value free speech freedom.

You have nothing but an “implied” threat which is by definition just your opinion. Saying that disinformation is a threat to our country is hardly controversial.

 

[DBA]

As already discussed, you took Clinton’s statement out of context

Again, we will have to agree to disagree.

Curious though, since when have Democrats cared anything about taking anything out of context?

Saying that disinformation is a threat to our country is hardly controversial

Having an Arbiter of Truth is very much controversial.

"Misinformation" is a relatively new term that has already been used for nefarious purposes. Facebook rings a bell.

 

[Nostra]

Well, let’s think about the differences here.

Kerry isn’t running for office. Trump is. I’m not voting for Kerry. You’re voting for Trump.

Trump has clearly stated on several occasions he wants government imposed repercussions for news organizations. Kerry has, at worse, implied something about combating disinformation.

And I’m the problem?

How will Lurch “combat disinformation”.

Sounds violent.

 

[DBA]

How will Lurch “combat disinformation”.

Sounds violent.

As long as news organizations continue to editorialize their content, misinformation will simply be a matter of opinion. Allowing the government to decide what is misinformation and what is not is extremely dangerous.

 

[Marener]

Again, we will have to agree to disagree.

Curious though, since when have Democrats cared anything about taking anything out of context?

Apparently you only care about taking things out of context when someone does it to your leaders.

Because the right has been taking things out of context for a very long time.

Right wing social media, where anything goes, is flush with people posting out of context clips. Do you care? No. You’re more worried about anyone trying to enforce any standards, even if the enforcer is the people that own the platform.

Having an Arbiter of Truth is very much controversial.

"Misinformation" is a relatively new term that has already been used for nefarious purposes. Facebook rings a bell.

It was hypothetical. Kerry is speaking abstractly. Sorry if you missed that.

Misinformation is absolutely not a new term. It has a long history as something the government has dealt with, especially during the Cold War.