It is incredibly rare you will see me comment on a presidential tweet. I don't think it's a productive way to govern. However, messages like this are dangerous and do actual harm.
It's also very important to be aware that different publications have different focus. You aren't going to get the same story from @HuffPostPol that will from @FoxNews.
Absorb this information accordingly, including adjusting your expectations on quality.
You don't expect the same experience or quality from a @McDonalds as a @RuthsChris, nor should you.
It's fine to have both, but maybe not daily McD's for your health and expect to pay a bit more for the steakhouse so they have the resources for a quality cut.
Unpleasant facts are not the same thing as fake news. Fake news is a term we just shouldn't use.
Either a story is true and accurate, or not true. There is certainly with some room for perspective if it's an opinion piece, but basic facts should be constant.
If a "journalist" calls something "fake news" because they don't like it, say something to the station/publication that you cannot take them seriously while they use that term, then STOP WATCHING that show or subscribing to that source.
If you see someone on twitter, facebook, insta, proclaiming "fake news" for a seemingly true story they don't like the facts of, point that out and then unfollow. Decrease the audience.
If you know someone personally who uses the term "fake news", politely ask them why and what part of a story they think is fake. Engage in a respectful conversation that challenges the use of the term "fake news".
If you don't like their mix, think they are too hard on a group, think they are omitting a group, etc., help make our news better by providing that feedback.
I am a constituent of Susan's. Ever since I have moved here I am astonished at how incredibly effective she is at harnessing people's hope and her words like a damn magician.
Though she is a consistent conservative vote, she is able to focus all eyes on her.
Then your family and community will look at you different.
Your behavior will be questioned, and even if you has zero responsibility, many will blame you for being a tease, wanting it, being irresponsible for choosing what should be a totally innocuous setting.
In this hypo traditional campaigning requires around $1+ million per year to get and/or keep a house seat (plus all the other energy you have to expend to keep the peanut gallery PACs happy).
Let's assume they're at it 5 days/week and take a couple weeks off per year.
Too many really lovely people hoping for their partner, child, parent, etc to be the person they could be if that partner, child, parent, etc if they only changed, which of course they have no desire and/or resources to do.
I've been asked this a lot - what is the benefit of ranked choice voting?
If you feel like politics keeps pushing far left or far right as candidates differentiate, RCV lets you pick the moderate with the back-up of "not the other one".
Maybe you think of yourself as an independent, moderate, etc, and really don't love either party (but probably like one party less) - you can select me as your first choice, and still have the back up of another candidate if not enough people agree with you. #mepolitics
In this race, folks who like Bruce probably don't like Jared, folks who prefer Jared probably aren't keen on Bruce.
A lot of folks would like (or find less annoying) someone who really isn't a party. With RCV, you can do that! It removes the risk of vote-splitting.