The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
See traditional media.
Carol Roth had a serious question that did far more to slam the media than any snark …
Serious question- how are people who have been wrong on just about everything for the past 3 or so years still considered reputable sources?
— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) April 10, 2019
Hey, John Brennan was clearly full of crap so LET’S INTERVIEW HIM SOME MORE.
Yup, that’s the media, especially our good, delicate, tolerant friends at CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, etc. etc.
Because they’re telling people what they want to hear and getting good ratings for it.
— Sarah Labance PhD (@sarahelabance) April 11, 2019
And if it hurts Trump and his supporters along the way, all the better.
They set aside common sense, facts, and evidence to recycle their hallucinogenic "hope and change" dreams. It was never about truth and all about continuing a narrative. Destroy people to win elections. Disgusting. Who thinks like that?
— Jim Laursen (@jimmyo14) April 11, 2019
Ahem, the media.
This is how. pic.twitter.com/rz8F1imMb3
— Nathan Dahm (@NathanDahm) April 11, 2019
Carol’s question garnered the attention of Tom Nichols, lucky her.
Define "wrong." No one's batting 1000, but curious what you mean here.
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) April 11, 2019
Sure, he’s curious.
I would definite it as "not correct". You could pick any starting point, but I was going with "Trump has 0 chance to win" to "the polls show Hillary will win" on up (but it could be applied in a lot of places and times).
— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) April 11, 2019
Well, okay, a wrong call on the election. (Lots of us made that one.) But three years of bad calls? Curious who you think that includes.
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) April 11, 2019
He’s trying SO HARD here.
Oh, c'mon- you've been paying attention for the last few years, right??!!
— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) April 11, 2019
She had to ask …
I have. That's why I asked.
Attacks on the rule of law? Check.
Free-fall as a superpower? Check.
Pro-Russia policy? Check.
Trade war? Check.
Budget busting tax cuts? Check.Call I missed? Gorsuch. Also, economy hasn't cratered. Yet. But so far, pretty on target by me.
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) April 11, 2019
Jeebus, Larry, and Moseph.
Tom, my tweet had nothing to do with you and I don’t really know how you would interpret that somehow it did.
— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) April 11, 2019
Because his ego insists that everything is about him.
That’s how.
Hey, I was jumping in on a tweet that didn't name names. I was curious. I was one of the people who called the election wrong, and Twitter is a public place, and sometimes subtweeting hits the wrong targets if not more precisely aimed. 🙂
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) April 11, 2019
This guy.
I wasn't subtweeting-I was giving commentary on 100s of people.
I didn't say "1 thing wrong".
I'm baffled you can't name one of the 100s that are consistently wrong & that you not being MSM would consider it was about you.
I tend to come after ideas/actions, not individuals.
🙂— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) April 11, 2019
We love that she returned the smile.
Name names! Makes it easier 🙂
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) April 11, 2019
I am neither here to make it easier, nor to name names. 🙂
— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) April 11, 2019
Someone get Tom some aloe, that’s one serious burn.
That's what made it a subtweet. pic.twitter.com/9QNHXIugy5
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) April 11, 2019
No, Tom. A subtweet is a tweet specifically about someone (or a few people). General commentary that includes 100s of people is commentary, not a subtweet.
Here's a non-subtweet: You are exhausting for no good reason! 🙂
Clearly you need to have the last word- so have at it.— Carol Roth (@caroljsroth) April 11, 2019
Technically WE will get the last word.
I am exhausting for *excellent* reasons, Mrs. McClain pic.twitter.com/ITzmpPLFNq
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) April 11, 2019
Everyone, roll your eyes along with us.
There ya’ go.
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member