First, do you know the difference between a "conversation" and a "debate"? I ask because what you are constantly doing is trying to combine BOTH. I am not even close to wanting to debate every damn time I see YOU have responded to something. If I wanted to debate every damn post I would go to a forum where that was the soul purpose of the forum. What you don't seem to get is not every post is about getting into a debate.
Second, I like facts just fine. I like feelings just fine as well. If I want to say Pelosi facilitated the events of Jan 6th I sure as hell can go right ahead and say it. What YOU need to understand is that you cannot refute what I am saying with "facts" because YOU DON'T HAVE THEM. You weren't there so anything you want to use to argue with is second hand news. At best you can give me your opinion on the events and surprise, surprise... we would be in a conversation.
I think right off the bat you are biased. You call it "infotainment". How is that ANY different than Trump calling them "Fake News". To me it seems like BOTH titles accomplish the same thing. It's not truthful for them to say their is NO fraud. Everyone has agreed there is some fraud. Even one act is still fraud.
I 100% want to have conversations but it is my opinion that what you do is not conversation. What you do is debate. Like I said, I am not here for debates, to be talked down too, to be told what to think, what I said or what I meant. Which again, you do. When I call you names it is because you have done these things.
Counter offer and challenge. Learn what a conversation is as apposed to a debate and you are more than welcome to have a conversation with me. If your goal is a debate, make that known and if I choose to debate you, I will. Like an adult. But if I lose, I will be a child about it.
So do you want to have a “conversation” where you do not get challenged, everything you say is accepted as accurate because you call it “feelings” or “opinion”, and an absence of proof is considered proof?
I’m afraid that’s not really conversation. It’s just people posting shit at random, with no reference to what another person has said.
Politics in conversation begets debate. It’s a foregone conclusion. So does religion. So does money. So does parenting. Etc.
If you want to converse without debate, politics is really not the subject to converse about. Honestly.
I am biased because I call 24/7 news stations “infotainment”? It’s a FACT that they are. There is not enough news to fill 24 hours a day. They “report” on non-news, which makes them entertainmen. Thus, “infotainment “. The word is not commentary, it’s just fact.
HOWEVER, it IS bias when you describe “mainstream media” as biased, but speak specifically to certain networks as being guilty, but purposefully leave out others that do the same or worse.
How many times has CNN been vilified for lying and bias by right-wingers, while they ignore that Fox has been shown to be worse? And the Dane people QUOTE the lies from Fox. Go figure.
So I’ll ask a non-rhetorical question: Do you want adult conversation where topics that spur debate result in debate, or do you want to just post random thoughts without getting responses that you may not like?
