“I’m just posting articles that I find interesting, I didn’t write them! Nothing can be blamed on me even though I clearly have an agenda!”
Sorry, wanted to get that out of the way so you didn’t need to bother with saying it.
They are definitely a real person and not a team of people being (poorly) managed to post propaganda.
poorly
Is that why you’re sure it’s a single person? Because of the poor management?
I’m inclined to agree with you, but would be curious if you have additional info or data points.
Thank you for saying that and I’m glad you finally agree with it, friend. :)
You don’t have any friends and that’s why you have to call everyone here your friend? Or are you just bugging because people disagree with the propaganda you’re slinging?
Who were you quoting? Because I’ve never said that sentence.
You’ve never said anything worth repeating
Thank you! :)
Two comments in an hour with the passive aggressive “Thank you! :)”. Is that all you have to say now that you just get called out on every post here? No one is buying your “niceness” either. Nice people don’t knowingly spread propaganda.
I’m just posting articles, friend. Feel free to avoid reading them if you prefer. Thank you! :)
Oh, I don’t read anything you post, given that it’s always propaganda and all. I just come straight here to see your downvotes instead. Sorry if I gave you the wrong idea, but people who post propaganda aren’t my friends, no matter how many smile emoticons and thanks they give me.
I understand you post articles you find interesting. But this article does not jive with your supposed socialist beliefs. The article is literally calling Harris a Democratic Socialist, which would be a good thing.
Harris’s agenda is almost identical to that of the Democratic Socialists of America, who are anti-capitalists.
It talks about how her wanting to pass a bill that codifies Roe is her refusing to find common ground with anti-abortion crazies.
This article was written by Merril Matthew’s who works for the Institute for Policy Innovation which is a think tank that, among other things, argues for less regulations to stimulate economic growth instead of any kind of stimulus or investment in the economy through the government, thinks we should reform (probably lower) taxes on insurance companies so they lower prices and “promote policies that create value-conscious shoppers in the health care marketplace.”, and that we should have less regulations and government investment with energy production because they “believe that free people operating within a free economy using voluntary risk capital will out-innovate government-directed central planning funded by taxpayer dollars.” They are very obviously a rather conservative think tank that is a piece of shit and thoroughly not socialists and I’d argue they think socialism is toxic.
They also have articles with such headlines as “What They Aren’t Telling You in That Crime-Reduction Happy Talk” (where they try to argue while crime is down, its actually up in some areas and criminals are becoming more aggressive and you should still be scared of crime), “Overturning Chevron Deference” (where they talk about how overturning Chevron is a good thing), “Net Neutrality: Regulation for Ideology’s Sake” (where they talk about how bad net neutrality is), “The Left’s Newest (Old) Idea: Let’s Build More Public Housing!” (Where they argue public housing is really bad and a horrible investment simply because its not well maintained due to federal funding being cut by republicans), and “About the ‘Warmest Year in Recorded History’” (where they argue that humans MAY contribute to climate warming, but really it’s not accurate to measure temps this way because we started measuring temps at a low point in global temperatures so there’s really no way to know for sure if global warming is man made or even out of the ordinary. There’s plenty more, but these were just in the first couple pages of their articles on their site.
So basically, this is an article written by a piece of shit who thinks that it’s bad to codify Roe and that regulations are all bad and who thinks that socialism is bad.
Why post this when it’s written by someone who is literally counter to your beliefs? Is it just because it’s anti Harris? Cause you should have a higher standard than that.
This user is one of the larger frauds anyone has seen on social media. They aren’t on Lemmy for any reason besides encouraging trump votes.
I’ve posted articles that are critical of Trump, Stein, and Harris, as well as articles praising each of them.
I don’t have to subscribe every statement in every article I post.
So, if you’re assuming I agree with every viewpoint in the articles I post, how does that even work when I share so many conflicting perspectives?!
Don’t have to subscribe to every viewpoint in articles you post? Sure, I get that. But to post one written by someone who is so obviously anti everything you believe in is just weird. There’s plenty of other anti Harris articles out there to post that aren’t written by people inherently opposed to everything you believe in.
Also, something I’ve genuinely been wondering, why post any articles praising Trump? He’s a fascist, you’ve said you’re not scared of him, but he’s still a fascist. Fascists are not worthy of any praise. You can say you don’t agree with the articles praising him, but why do you even find those articles interesting?
You can bring that up with The Hill, the respected news org that published the article. I didn’t write it, thought it was interesting. Posted it. That’s it.
I’ve posted articles that are pro-Trump and I’ve posted articles that are anti-Trump. Same with Harris. Same with Stein.
It’s political news, this is a political news community. Thanks!
Correct. You posted it. Which means you wanted others to read it. And I don’t understand posting something written by a piece of shit when there are plenty of other anti Harris articles out there written by not pieces of shit. You don’t have to post everything you find interesting, you chose to post this.
And that doesn’t answer my question of why you’d find an article praising Trump to be interesting? I’m trying to have a conversation with ya and you seem very resistant to it. I’m not trying to be insulting, I’m just wanting to understand your rationale.
I don’t and can’t speak for OP, but I had a thought here. Somehow it feels similar to change my mind by steven crowder (for those not familiar, he adopts a position he supports but then seeks out folks who believe the opposite to debate them).
Correct. You posted it. Which means you wanted others to read it.
I posted it so that others could read it if they wished. I’m ambivalent about people reading or not reading the articles. And it’s not my issue if you don’t understand posting something you don’t agree with. Feel free to only post things you do agree with. You are free to do that. As I am free to post what I post.
Thank you!
Removed by mod
Basically, it’s like you feel the urge to share things that strike your interest as opposed to sharing things that you deeply agree with. In fact they may strike your interest because they’re so opposite to what beliefs you hold. So there’s not always a one-to-one relationship between what’s interesting and what one agrees with.
I’m bringing it to your attention that posting propaganda is the same thing as writing it. This is a political news community, not a political propaganda community.
And I posted a political news article. If you don’t think the article fits the community guidelines, then please message the mods. They are very responsive. Thanks!
Sorry, did I say you violated rules? I said you were just as bad as as the propagandists, not that you broke rules. You’re just a shitty poster, that’s not against the rules.
Also, love that you’re still glitching with the thank yous. It really shows that you don’t actually give a shit.
Dear The Hill:
Please make this sea lion stop posting propaganda in favor of trump.
Thanks!
What a stoopid article
I like The Hill and they usually have good pieces.
This one - well, it’s an opinion piece but it’s a bit different from the usual fare. (The author appears to be a conservative writer.)
Actually, it’s kinda posting both my hope and something I want to keep down - that Harris is likely more liberal than she’s painting herself to be in late 2024 (the hope), which implicitly would be a good reason for conservatives or even conservative-leaning moderates to either vote for another or sit this one out (no! keep that down!).
The Hill - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Hill:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://thehill.com/opinion/4920738-kamala-harris-policy-flip-flop/
We see the real Kamala Harris, Right wing authoritarian cop. This is who she’s always been.
Yes something something trump 2024
Yep!