Recently I decided to give Twitter a go. It’s part experiment, part connecting with people and cracking sarcastic jokes, part self-promotion. This far, I can say it doesn’t look promising, to say the least. I feel blessed my brain development happened on other decades, long before this mess.<\/p>\n
Here’s a teachable moment about the dismal state in which “dialogue” lays nowadays.<\/p>\n
As if you needed any confirmation.<\/p>\n
Trump vs. Clinton<\/h2>\n
Disclaimer: <\/strong>I am biased in favor of Donald Trump, due to the fact that I think he is one of the best possible choices for US President, and also because I’m obtaining a monetary gain if he wins. \n<\/strong><\/p>\n
Background:<\/strong> as you probably know, while Hillary Clinton is running for US President, the Clinton Foundation scandal doesn’t seem to matter a lot, at least to the low information voters<\/em>. \nRemember, it’s a pro forma<\/em> charity receiving millions from foreign countries that mysteriously seem to also benefit<\/span><\/span><\/span>maybe it's our dirty mind imagining things...<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> from policies enacted by the Clintons in all those years…<\/p>\n
It’s the kind of corruption scandal that you’d imagine would nuke even the prospects of victory of a wannabe dog-catcher, let alone someone running for the most important job on the planet.<\/p>\n
This level of negative publicity would be normally damning even before actual responsibilities of penal relevance have been ascertained, if any. Or, like in this particular case, even if there is no ground for a formal investigation, in the eyes of prosecutors.<\/p>\n
You know, at a certain level, even justice is about politics.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Now, Twitter.<\/strong><\/p>\n
Here Lawrence Bland, typical Social Justice Warrior I had no pleasure to meet before, charges head first against Trump, who’s campaigning on the level of corruption of the Clinton Machine. Bland is clearly 100% in Clinton camp.<\/p>\n
Please appreciate their logic, I’m making it explicit: “We’re never gonna let our adversary score”. Any argument should be met with a counter-argument, usually a change of subject or a non sequitur<\/em>. Your side should enjoy the feeling of always coming up with a clever rebuttal. That somehow translates into always being right.<\/p>\n
The bull charges<\/h2>\n
In this case Bland asks for a full disclosure of Trump’s tax filings, which is akin to saying: let’s talk instead about your<\/em> skeletons in the closet! \nLet’s put things in perspective.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u2666 On one side, we have a story that would be huge. It’s not being buried by major media outlets, but it’s been downplayed as much as it seemed reasonable. Politifact<\/em> “fact checked” it with some embarrassment, reluctantly.<\/p>\n