Replies

I have a foolproof plan that predates the internet. I look to see who my local commielib newspaper endorses and then vote just the opposite. Works every time.

And that's just as bad, if not worse, than the morons on the internet. You're picking your vote on someone you know possibly nothing about. Your only 'information' comes from a source that you admit is untrustworthy. If your paper endorses guy #5 for the Repub primary, how do you pick which of the other four to be your guy? You do realize the internet is just like your local paper, only bigger, with more info, and easier-to-access archives?

Once again, only morons use the internet to decide what candidates to vote for and those morons are probably liberals already. If we have a nation of moron voters then we get the government we deserve. I don’t think most conservative voters need Google or F*ckbook to tell us who to vote for. We instinctively know that the MSM lies to us and the more someone is tarred as “extreme right”, the more likely I am to vote for them.

And what makes you think all Conservative voters watch the news? I turn on OANN maybe twice a month. That's it. Most of my news comes from here, on FR: the internet. And sure, you may vote for the extreme right, but that dosn't mean everyone is, and especially not people calling themselves 'independent'. People who are generally the swing vote, and likely know the least about either side's candidate, and hence are more likely to do some cursory research. Doing some research on your candidate isn't being a moron, it's called being an informed voter and knowing what's going on, as well as the current issues and what your candidate believes in.

Blindly voting for the Repub is almost as bad as blindly voting for the Dem. How can you educate the morons who vote Dem 'just because', when you do the same for the Repub? When you talk with a Dem or Independent, how can you convince them to vote Repub if you can't argue the negatives/fakenews on your guy, because you don't even know what they are?

Most of my news comes from here, on FR: the internet.

Yes, and how often is FR linked on a Google search of what's trending? You're moving the debate far off from the original point. This Epstein guy says possibly 78 million votes shifted based solely on how Google ranks articles. That's a way different discussion than whether you visit FR or not. Just because they are both part of the same internet has nothing to do with whether one is relevant to the other. Almost every candidate today has a website where they (if they choose to) flesh out their positions on issues of importance to me. That's doing research. I am also on mailing lists of groups who advocate/support key issues I consider important and they send me voter guides of their preferred candidates. But by the time you get down to the general election, it's typically D vs. R and 95% of the time, I'll vote for the R. Sometimes, I will vote for the I if I think the R sucks. But back to the point. Google and F*ckbook think they can sway the elections based on skewing the trending and ranking of news stories. Fine. Let them. The only people who would actually change their votes based on that are morons and the morons are almost always already Democrats because if they actually used their brains they wouldn't be persuaded by Google and F*ckbook.