MSDNC exists, so why shouldn't RT?

I'm surprised you can't provide the answer... I mean we've had some pretty lengthy conversations. You must have some idea of my political viewpoint. I've even dropped strong hints in this very thread. It should be a cakewalk.

Either the audience is too proud to humor the judges, completely brainwashed by the DNC or (with all due respect) composed of simpletons.

The prize should have been claimed long ago.



P.S. That movie was pretty good

 

Yeah, it wasn't so bad a movie for Melissa McCarthy. She has had numerous misses but it was watchable.

I'm just finished organizing my studio and all 200cm of me ache, so the only prize I'm after is a couple of acetaminophen.

Kaos on Netflix is watchable I'm told.

 

I've consulted the judges and they are, albeit reluctantly, willing to accept this as the correct answer. However, the grand prize has be replaced with a picture of the grand prize instead. Congrats to @Tuxan anyway:



Q. MSDNC exists, so why shouldn't RT?
A. Because Merrick Garland wants to keep his job.

By attacking Russia and giving some lip service w.r.t. his utility he gains some favor w/ the incoming admin; no matter who wins.

It's called self-interest and it's the root of all human behavior. Other answers are hand waving, opinions and/or propaganda.

Case closed, thanks for playing politics with me ;-)

 

Well, self-interest has layers and stages. A society depends on the right proportions of people operating in the various levels.

Trump has a peculiar, seemingly compromised relationship with Putin. Don't let a few sanctions fool you, Putin knows he needs to give to get.

 

Fill in the blanks, you could say the same thing about everyone in gubment.

"If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

-Federalist No. 51, James Madison
​

Around around we go.

 

Around you go because you share a cognitive flatness that is surprisingly so present with objectivists.

Your argument dismisses the very real differences in political behavior by assuming that because most politicians seem dirty, all are equally bad.

This is a cognitive trap, failing to apply conceptual weighting means ignoring the nuances that distinguish a corrupt, ineffective or dangerous politician from one who, despite flaws, actually delivers value for their constituents.

By equating all with the worst, you’re overlooking critical distinctions that are essential for rational political judgment.

 

Are you saying opposing viewpoints are not allowed or that you just don't agree?

 

I'm saying that some people are shite at telling the big bad wolf from Grandma.

 

Lol, a diplomat... I see.

I won't worry then, since your politics seem to reward all decision making; rather than good decision making.

Then again, reality comes knocking in unexpected ways.

 

Opinions are easy to hold, but qualified opinions, those shaped by experience and responsibility, are what truly matter.

The things you dismiss or just don't see now are often the ones you come to understand only when leadership is thrust upon you.