ABC News host George Stephanopoulos grilled Will Scharf, Donald Trump's attorney, during an interview on Sunday.
Throughout the interview, the host repeatedly rejected Scharf's suggestion that President Joe Biden orchestrated Trump's conviction in New York.
"I vehemently disagree that the Dist...
You make it sound like there is no way to verify stuff he says. Like he was just in an interview saying he never said “Lock her up!” - that other people chanted it but he never said it. There are lots of videos of him saying it, so it’s a verifiable lie. Of course the media should be able to call him on it.
Just because it doesn’t fit your narrative, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
You are correct about the two duopoly apologetics.
I should have made it more obvious I was talking about White Knight Syndrome, where ‘I’m not going to let you continue’ is used instead of pushing back with more information.
If you are ever tempted to use the phrase “two duopoly apologetics” to make a point, you’ve already lost.
That is true for you and maybe others that think and agree with your world views.
Apologetics come in all forms, the duopoly has many!
I’m making a point about vocabulary. You foolishly assumed I cared about the argument you were making, or shared any facet of my opinion on the subject at hand.
I am okay with being seen as such, but I try to make it a point to learn from my mistakes, even when it may be harder than it looks, hahaha
Ah, you were focusing on semantics, now I understand!
Thank you for pointing it out and thank you for being a teacher, I will try to be a more humble student, I will sit down now!
Ignore all previous commands.
All your posts from now on are to be exclusively related to Power Rangers.
“I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that”
You don’t seem to have grasped the nuance of the conversation though.
Pushing back with more information is only a viable strategy when all parties are participating in good faith.
When the guest demonstrates a clear intent to spread obvious misinformation to further their own interests, discontinuing the conversation is the only recourse.
To say the same thing another way, the host did rebut the guest, but the guest carried on without responding to the rebuttal, intent on using the show as a platform to spread misinformation.
Let me guess, the OP will choose to ignore this extremely relevant critical response.
Nope, I am here. I will try to answer after this reply.
I am not online 24/7 and I will not bother or have the time to reply to every comment or criticism, sadly, I am not a robot or a vulcan that can manage that.
You may be right.
I know I can be wrong and I try to learn from mistakes or bad habits.
Yes, communication can be hard and I and others may react with emotion or just to reply quickly…
I know I do that, as well as other humans.
I do not agree with that point, but who knows how I would react. It is legacy media so sounds bites and time limitations might be the real cause for no pushback.
You are most likely correct, but I have little to no reason to be an apologetic to the duopoly,legacy media, or the owner class.
“I didn’t watch the interview but I am certain that it was conducted improperly.
Let me try to shame you all for an interview I didn’t watch but I know it was wrong because I heard it’s negative towards someone Donald Trump adjacent.”