In summary, read the transcript or listen to the interview to gain a reasonable understanding of the topic of discussion.
Did you miss the part wherein I said it was too long compared to my level of interest in the topic?
Rely on a summary to overlap your uninformed view with another persons biased takeaways to create an even more biased, less informed view of your own while adding the mistaken perception you now know something about the topic.
Would a summary from you be similarly biased and leave me just as uninformed?
"It’s ironic that the Church that people claim to be true, puts so much effort into hiding truths."
--I Have Questions, 01-25-2024
In summary, read the transcript or listen to the interview to gain a reasonable understanding of the topic of discussion.
Did you miss the part wherein I said it was too long compared to my level of interest in the topic?
Rely on a summary to overlap your uninformed view with another persons biased takeaways to create an even more biased, less informed view of your own while adding the mistaken perception you now know something about the topic.
Would a summary from you be similarly biased and leave me just as uninformed?
Yes. If you were seeking a summary to determine if the subject interests you, I think I could do a good job summarizing the topic. If you want to have a summary in place of reading the transcript or listening to the interview, no one can fully replace the value of doing that for yourself. Discussion afterward would benefit, and further evidence for and against the views expressed in the interview would benefit the broader goal of seeking better understanding. But trying to fast travel knowledge-seeking is fraught with the perils already illuminated.
Mailing unsolicited ballots to people creates opportunities to cheat.
Nobody has been mailed an unsolicited ballot. There is no known way to mail an unsolicited ballot.
Please supply evidence of anyone ever receiving an unsolicited ballot. Alternatively, explain how an unsolicited ballot could ever be sent, by explaining the details of how the mail-out process works, and how it could be manipulated.
Here is an example of when an Illinois resident didn't receive any unsolicited ballots.
I've worked with a lot of computer networks. I'm a liberal. I don't want to see Trump win. Therefore, how can you be sure that I won't hack into Dominion voting machines and switch votes to D? Why waste time with all this ballot BS when I can just connect over the cloud to Dominion and hack them?
Good god. This is basic stuff. All these liberal apologetics for a voting system that is unacceptable around the world for obvious reasons should make the CES feel wholesome in comparison.
The countries in blue, anyway. Shining lights, every one of them.
Yes. If you were seeking a summary to determine if the subject interests you, I think I could do a good job summarizing the topic.
I respectfully request that you do so.
If you want to have a summary in place of reading the transcript or listening to the interview, no one can fully replace the value of doing that for yourself.
I know that. I’ll take my chances.
Discussion afterward would benefit, and further evidence for and against the views expressed in the interview would benefit the broader goal of seeking better understanding. But trying to fast travel knowledge-seeking is fraught with the perils already illuminated.
Thank you again for telling me things I already know, but I’m only interested in a summary of what’s in the article, not a philosophical treatise on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of summaries in general.
I hereby grant you permission to avoid wasting keystrokes on anything other than a summary of what’s in that article.
"It’s ironic that the Church that people claim to be true, puts so much effort into hiding truths."
--I Have Questions, 01-25-2024
Yes. If you were seeking a summary to determine if the subject interests you, I think I could do a good job summarizing the topic.
I respectfully request that you do so.
If you want to have a summary in place of reading the transcript or listening to the interview, no one can fully replace the value of doing that for yourself.
I know that. I’ll take my chances.
Discussion afterward would benefit, and further evidence for and against the views expressed in the interview would benefit the broader goal of seeking better understanding. But trying to fast travel knowledge-seeking is fraught with the perils already illuminated.
Thank you again for telling me things I already know, but I’m only interested in a summary of what’s in the article, not a philosophical treatise on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of summaries in general.
I hereby grant you permission to avoid wasting keystrokes on anything other than a summary of what’s in that article.
I hereby continue to maintain my independent choice as to how and when to post, thanks. Keystroke economics is a subject which I find best left to those who understand the value and need for spending in order to increase rather than misers burying them as if their only utility was in keeping them squirreled away like that one parable described. Wow, turns out the New Testament has some wisdom in it that applies here. Who'd a thunk?
The interview is between Terry Gross of NPR's Fresh Air and Dana Milbank. Milbank is a journalist who has covered Congress and the White House since 1994, writing for the Wall Street Journal, New Republic, Washington Post, and The Post. The main topic of the interview is the subject of a book Milbank authored which was recently published titled, "The Destructionists: The Twenty-Five-Year Crack-Up Of The Republican Party". The discussion in the interview roughly tracks the changes in GOP political strategies from Newt Gingrich to Donald Trump, and how hyper-partisanship combined with the willingness to spread conspiracy theories in the name of said partisanship has resulted in the corrosion of the function of government.
