[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by jebartle

Snip...>Maybe I'm a dreamer, BUT I'd really like it not be a red or blue debate BUT a legitimate news versus fake news<...Snip

Therein lies the crux of the problem.

In spite of proof from legitimate sources showing otherwise, there will always be those who not only refuse to do their own research to get to the truth...but try to denigrate those who do.

Whether from an ineptness in the basic technical ability to provide legitimate links, or simply a refusal to believe them ('confirmation bias') there is a significant faction who choose to go by their gut feelings...instead of actual facts.

There is however a recent glimmer, albeit a dim one, that those who promulgate the most outrageous, putrid and vicious false conspiracy theories...may be held accountable for such.

Sandy Hook Really DID Happen. (poke here)

Sandy Hook father to receive $450,000 from conspiracy theorist, jury says.

Retired professor James Fetzer, co-author of the book "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook," was found guilty in June of defaming Leonard Pozner.

I also find it telling that some folks think a debate, based on actual facts, can't be enlightening/legitimate...if there's a majority that feel a certain way.

It's as if, they believe that..."might=right."

THAT, in itself...explains a lot.

Oh yeah, as far as a forum for discussing politics, the ONLY way it could ever work is if it was constantly & fairly moderated...which is beyond reasonable (regarding the "constantly," not the "fairly" part) by the volunteer moderators.

Recognizing, of course, that even if someone is proved to be dead wrong on an issue, they won't change their opinion anyway...they'll just try to change the subject.