Who makes the debates questions and sets up the format. The format sucks. As well as those 13 canidates. Not only that but the debates on how the debates went suck. If you can’t understand why that’s I don’t know what to tell you.

https://www.myheritage.org/news/4-reasons-why-the-iran-de... /

Here is an article saying the Iran deal was bad. I’m not saying it’s Good or bad. What I am saying is the media’s way of debating whether it is terrible. That is a huge problem and is a single reason why trumps term fake news resides with so many

It’s not just that they make it hard to understand the right answer. It’s that they actively keep the right Answer from the American people. If you can’t see that is what is going on then idk what to tell you. It seems pretty obvious to me.

The Iran deal and the middle east is another can of worms. Hasn’t the United States operations in the Middle East been corrupt for a long time. Yet even with that corruption we still have a candidate who has been entrenched in the corruption for years. I don’t even know where to debate you because the government and media have gotten so much wrong in the past 50 years where would I even begin. How can you screw up on so many issues and still get on the ballot.

That deleted FBI thread sure would be a good place to post the news that Michael Cohen received a $500,000 payment from a Russian Oligarch named Viktor Vekselberg into the same LLC account that was set up to pay Stormy Daniels.

Yes, it's most certainly a waste of time.

Drain the swamp: https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/99398349303308...

Question, did AT&T happen to be considering a merger that needed government approval when they hired noted M&A expert Michael Cohen?

I think his point is that Fake News is to some extent in the eye of the beholder. Generally the same facts here as CNN, but the spin is completely different. I think it's too early to say which spin is the most accurate. You seem to jump the gun a lot when one of your favorite sources has a negative story about the current administration. Not saying they are always wrong, just saying you have definite bias, and it shows.

Relevant:

""When [Trump] complains about “fake news,” he doesn’t actually mean “news that is untrue”; he means news that is personally inconvenient to Donald Trump.

The Media Research Center didn’t say 91 percent of Trump coverage was fake. Trump himself conveniently drew the connection.

And having conflated “negative” with “Fake,” he proceeded to float the idea of punishing the press for its perceived transgressions — in particular, revoking their credentials (presumably their White House credentials).

If this actually happened, it would be an unprecedented attack on the freedom of the press."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/9/17335306...

My point had nothing to do with the article or whether the iran deal was good or bad, but hey keep ignoring that.

For what it's worth, I know BobcatBandit wasn't trying to argue that the Heritage Foundation's take was correct necessarily, but I've lost track of his argument otherwise.

He started his argument by going line by line through Hillary's policy positions as a means of demonstrating instances of hypocrisy (he called it 'corruption') by Hillary and the media. He then laid out his views on how and why the media was fake, holding up 'crossfire' style talking head segments on cable news channels as representative of the media as a whole and their failure to address real policy.

I brought up the Iran deal coverage not because I wanted to argue about specific policy, but because I thought it would be instructive to use a specific, real-time example to show how the media does, in fact, address policy specifics in their coverage.

He misunderstood and decided the conversation we were having was basically that the Iran deal was either good or bad, when in actuality I was making the argument that most policy decisions -- if not all policy decisions -- are nuanced and difficult and more often than not can't easily be categorized into neat buckets of 'good' and 'bad' or even 'true' and 'false.'

As nearly as I can tell, his stance seems to be that things are actually pretty easy. But politicians and the media have ****ed them up to a point that they're no longer so. And that that's because of corruption and lies.

But I don't want to put words in his mouth.

Thanks for not putting words in my mouth.

That’s kinda right. My first point was that both parties were corrupt and that we needed a third. I thought at first you were trying to argue that the right was corrupt and the left wasn’t. So I was trying to point out to you ways Hillary was flawed, and that because she was so flawed there was no reason for her to be the person to win the nomination. The only way I see a flawed canidate rising through the system and winning the nomination is through some sort of corruption in the system.

Then I think at some point you started talking about trump and fake news. I then Shifted to talking about that and how I think the news is fake, but not for the reasons trump says. I would like to focus on that part of our conversation.

My argument has nothing to do with the news being factually fake. My argument has to do with the format of it. That’s why I don’t want to debate a specific idea like Iran at this point. You are right there are a lot of great places you can find good coverage of the Iran deal. So let’s say we both do our homework on it and you’re for one side of it and I’m for another. Then we’re both invited on one of the major cable networks to discuss it. What I’ve been trying to say is that when we have that debate on TV. The debate format in which we discuss it currently is seriously flawed. Biases can be introduced based on the hosts reaction or who they bring on to argue a specific point. Someone who’s not me, could have a way better argument for the same side of the Iran deal that I’m arguing on in the debate. Yet if you beat me on TV in the debate. The people watching will get the idea that the side I’m arguing for is wrong, because you beat me. even though there is a better argument out there that might beat yours the people watching will never hear it and because of that they will be uninformed on who is right on the issue. That’s just one example on how it could be “fake”. You two are acting like these flaws in our debate system are no big deal because you don’t get your facts or opinions from there. Well the problem is a lot of people do. I would say a big segment of our population does. That’s a big problem because they’re getting a filtered out version of opinions. Another huge problem you don’t address is that these same networks are the ones who host our presidential debates. The format for that is completely wrong as well. You put a bunch of people on a stage and they shout at eachother and use cheesy punch lines to try to get your vote, while never talking about the issues. This is another huge problem and why I would call it fake news. What do you think would happen if a non biased person sat down with these canidates for 3 hours let’s say 1v1 and just talked to them on these issues. The American people would get a much better sense of who these people are as well as get a chance to listen to these people talk and go in depth on these issues that we both agree can be complex. That would be a much better way to judge our presidential canidates. Yet this system isn’t in place. Why? I think because of corruption. The news doesn’t want the American people actually to be informed or they would have changed this system a long time ago. If it’s not flawed then explain to me how these two morons got nominated. If you think Hillary specifically ran on issues and was more qualified than trump then how did she lose? Shouldn’t she have beaten him in the debate system we have set up? Unless the debate system we have set up doesn’t actually allow for good debate. Right? Unfortunately I don’t feel bad for her because I think this has helped her stay in political power as much as it helped trump beat her. There are way more qualified people out there who could be our president but because these news networks are flawed we don’t get to hear them actually debate these people in a fair way. That’s why it’s fake news. That’s why both the left and the right are corrupt and we need a new party. They are using these flaws in the debating system to rise to power and support their platforms even though their platforms are wrong.