Chuck Todd is a stain on journalism, as usual.
#Trump is barely any younger than Biden, and far less fit physically and mentally. Biden has no role in handling the Hunter investigation, which is solely controlled by a Trump appointee.
But Todd wants what he always wants: the R narrative.
He bewailed Trump as an existential threat to journalism and the country, calling him a "nightmare." But hey, getting him back means more eyeballs, right?
I haven't seen it "raising" any "questions" from anyone who wasn't already committed to voting against Biden, though.
@mcfate Of course not. But what use is that to devout both-sideser like Todd?
But who CARES? Chuck Todd was an idiot in 2020, it didn't impact the election.
If he annoys you, watch some cartoons. Read a book.
Preaching to the choir, no matter who's doing it, isn't worth paying much attention to. He's not winning any NEW votes.
@mcfate Yes, that is very likely true. But it remains vile when the media spurns its responsibilities in order to promote a horserace with a fascist.
The media's "responsibilities" aren't anything that can be legislated, and you don't WANT them to be.
The media gets to decide for itself what its "responsibilities" are, and you can thank the First Amendment for that.
If you want to punish them, you do it by NOT paying attention to them. That's your recourse.
The folks at the Gateway Pundit are on just as firm ground complaining that The Intercept is "spurning" its "responsibilities, as vice-versa.
@mcfate Actually, I doubt they would. They have an ideological line, and they're proud of it. Yes, of course they say their line is "truth." But they don't hide their alignment.
@mcfate Then we'll agree to disagree.
I don't need anyone's permission.
@mcfate Did anyone suggest you do?
When someone posts something, they're eliciting agreement.
You didn't get any from me, and that seems to be distressing you.
@mcfate Um, no. "Agree to disagree" is a polite way of saying "we don't agree, and we both have a right to our opinion, so there's no point in continuing to discuss it."
That's not granting or denying permission, or seeking argument, or anything else.
This is getting so meta that you need to take a step back and ask yourself what exactly your goals are here.
Venting at ME is pointless, your emotions are of little interest to me. Venting at reality is even more pointless.
You could just scream into a pillow and save both of us a lot of wasteful effort here.
ProTip: "agreeing to disagree" is the point at which YOU stop disagreeing. You're still AT it, though.
I never agreed to anything of the sort.
@RationalLeft
"Supposedly".
Sounds like you're making assumptions that are unwarranted to me.
Both Gateway Pundit and the Intercept would likely deny being "partisan" at all, I suppose.