Anyway, Reid and everyone else in this space, whatever their politics, should just have to openly publish all 501c4, 501c3, PAC and dark money spending, maybe in a yearly statement with some overarching statement about their strategy/intent. Or it should just be very restricted.
-
Let's go back to Mike's tweet, I don't think he was asking "why is RH not generally more critiqued, like PT?" Because the answer is clearly substantive -- more people find PT objectionable. I think Mike was asking the better question: "Disinfo is bad -- are we watching for this?"
I don't think we've got quite the same lens on this (or that you've got a good sense of what mine is), but I think I agree with the bottom line, here. "How would I feel if it were the other side?" isn't meant to equivocate; it's a thought experiment to dispel some degree of bias.
-
-
Agreed, on that bottom line, we are aligned. I think it'd be helpful for me to say aloud I don't think PT is "the other side," but instead some other thing entirely that isn't helpful in anchoring myself to.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So when I run that thought experiment about what if it was Peter, I find myself stopping at him writing a public apology for decisions that turned out poorly. Does he do that?
-
The apology doesn't matter much. IMO, two things matter here: (1) what was known and intended — and I'm very inclined to err on the side of believing RH, and (2) what actually occurred: in this case, a pretty blatant manipulation of a critical democratic process.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.