Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 468661936322510849
Who else can we trust though
There is literally no other source
Does it really matter? Hillary is such a has-been she no one is going to look.
It matters to the republicans.
Prove Hillary and the democrats took money
And using that, prove they are corrupt
It's quite plausible to be honest. There was the whole Russian Uranium scandal back in 2015.
If it's prooved they are corrupt
It wouldn't be outrageous to think that Putin or some cronies shovelled money into what was one of her campaign funds.
Republicans will be the new major party
But Hillary can barely make speaker fees at Universities.
Who the fuck would want Hillary as a speaker though
She lost to her first pick in GE opponent.
She's literally good for nothing
Unless it's to talk about her time as a senator
It's a finger trap. Trump can't direct an actual investigation (and his direct underlings can't stat it) because it'll look like they're attacking political opposition. And she's not really worth attacking anyway.
If they don't it gets the Republican base angry.
Really, not going after her is the winning strategy for Trump. Keeps the base inflamed while not making a major scandal.
Now, if, say the NYTimes or Fox News decided to look into this and found something (either yes, or no, depending on which source you pick--only unexpected results are really going to matter) it could be significant.
But my guess is that they aren't going to want to invest resources when there's other ways to push narratives and sell ads.
So my guess is that this ends up in a grey state where it's plausible but essentially unconfirmable either way.
huh
fuck hillary
Honestly, I think it really reflects on the state of Journalism today.
Expect 100 op-eds no one is going to read pushing it out or trying to rebut it somehow.
And it won't even matter.
The papers sold their souls in the past couple years and the lines are so solid that no one actually cares anymore.
So many websites came up trying to be objective
As for why people might want Hillary as a speaker. She *did* run for president and is the first woman to do so. Universities like that kind of thing. Even if her speeches aren't worth paying attention to anyway.
They all gave up after realising no one wanted objective news
Objective news is boring, and makes people uncomfortable
No one wants to be uncomfortable
Yeah, I'm not going to say it's only the papers fault.
But there are some that I'd expect to hold a certain line.
Websites like fusion, vice and mother goose became propoganda because propoganda sells
The few websites I trust are The Knife and Newsline
But they tend to a certain level of hyperbole.
I stick to financial papers at this point (CNBC, WSJ, etc). They're not especially objective either, but they do try and prevent their subscribers from losing money reporting falsehoods.
The Knife is the closest thing to objective news as of now
The Knife seems good, but I haven't read too much from there.
Increasingly, I think the reality is that the reality is that you might have to pay for high quality news for applications or acept you'll need to read 3 different papers for a good viewpoint.
And realize where the actual biases tend to lie.
That might be better than a single consolidated source that's lying about being objective though.
Read CNN, Breitbart, and Washington Post, only believe what is common across all three