Sure, but I know you're smart enough to recognize the reason why Republicans would want to ramp up the performative politics specifically in the coming weeks and months, too.
"If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed...and we will deserve it." - Lady Lindsey Beauregard Graham, 2016
He’s probably right in this instance, too. Republicans are trying to pull the same shtick Trump did, minus all the charisma - it’s not going to work. The party’s devolving into a weird Christian caliphate, which I don’t like, and I’m a Roman Catholic. Like I told you in the other thread, if they stopped talking about pedophiles, grooming and other assorted nonsense and focused just on talking about money, they’d be far more palatable to the average voter sitting somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, Trump gave them a small taste of stardom and they just can’t help themselves. That’s neither here nor there, at least the election is going to be quite funny, which is all that really matters in the absence of good candidates.
Another one. for the (n+1)th time, at no point I said or implied to defend an arbiter of truth.
I think his point (and to some extent mine prior to the clarification) is that someone has to look at the evidence and decide if something was truthful or not. In order to arrive at that point, you go through a dozen iterations of the same story that are more or less truthful, because everyone has a slightly different recollection of what occurred, why or what the ramifications of the event are. Binary truth is only an option in isolation from any nuance or opinion - you can objectively say that it rained last night if that’s indeed what happened, but you can’t discuss a more complex subject and claim that you of all people have the ultimate truth and anyone who doesn’t share your point of view is just “lying”, that’s, again, very reductive.
You’re presenting a very nice notion, but it’s ultimately an ideal without a framework that makes it possible surrounding it, that’s why he’s asking you about who’s going to be the arbiter. As a general rule, reporters by and large try to be objective unless they’re acting in bad faith (you mentioned Fox, I mentioned two other liars myself). In order to determine if something is or is not truthful, it needs to be examined and discussed, there’s investigation of facts involved here, which is part of the reason why I posted this thread.
Of all the issues out there I find freedom of speech, particularly freedom on the web, to be paramount - that’s why I don’t care which party’s responsible for an infraction or which party is launching a defense of the principle, or whether they’re doing it in good faith or not - all of that is secondary to maintaining the right to free speech as untouchable. It’s no secret that I’m not particularly liked in this section and that’s fine, it’s not a popularity contest, but I do have principles and this is one of them. In order to have objective news coverage, or open public discourse, or the ability to put forward new ideas, people must be able to speak without interference of external actors, particularly the government. Whether that interference is direct or covert doesn’t matter, anything that stifles such efforts is a net positive in my book.
Hope that clarifies some things. I didn’t ask you a bunch of questions to be an asshole about it, I was asking them because, in context of the conversation we’re having, it seems like a nice dream to have with a couple of gaps that need filling in to complete the picture.