[danans]

> This is an elitist point of view, and I don't think you are as good at deconstructing untruths

You seem to have ignored the sentence I wrote immediately following that:

"Even you and I don't always have that rigor, even though we probably both strive for it."

I count myself as "people" here.

> So you think you can mindread people and you know what "many people" want? > You just admitted it's hard to judge another persons desires.

No, but I know that targeting peoples basest desires and resentments is a very effective propaganda technique. You don't need a PhD in history to concluded that.

[s_y_n_t_a_x]

Yes I did read your next statement and many people do have that rigor, this is not something you can mindread. If you don't check the news you read then it's on you.

It's certainly not so bad that we need to censor politicians because SO MANY people can't think for themselves.

We had 8 years of Obama, I didn't hear anything about anyone needing censoring, only when we have a Republican in office do we need to think about censoring...

When they start censoring the Democrats constant lies then I'll believe you want a legitimate debate. Don't worry the Dems will provide you with their very own fact checker!

I wouldn't assume, especially when it's assuming about 327 million people's ideology and thought process.