Aren't Americans concerned by the loss of trust? (No visible reaction from the public?)

[PozBearWI]

Do we really WANT the dems to play dirty like the 'publicans?  Seriously?  What fucking world are we asking for when we do that?  How the fuck is "actblue" fraud????  @nanana reading your reply above has me thinking maybe fox is all you listen to?

[nanana]

I never listen to Fox.  Here are some references to the ActBlue controversy: [think before following links] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/potential-actblue-criminal-charges-over-possible-fraud-donations-once-again-reveal-the-dems-fraud-campaign/ar-AA1qQv0D; [think before following links] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/us/politics/actblue-democrat-fundraising-resignations.html?searchResultPosition=1;[think before following links] https://www.iowaattorneygeneral.gov/newsroom/attorney-general-bird-demands-proof-from-actblue-over-concerns-of-illegal-donations-that-may-influen; [think before following links] https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/04/breaking-exclusive-corrupt-and-criminal-democrat-party-receives-half-its-donations-from-unemployed-who-are-likely-elderly-voters-whose-identities-are-stolen-wheres-the-money-really-coming-from/

; [think before following links] https://www.zerohedge.com/political/actblue-tightens-donation-security-requirements-amid-investigations;

I think you have a great point though PozBearWI in that people of different political persuasions find it difficult to stomach the editorial styles and spins from various sources of reporting and typically gravitate to sources that OMIT coverage of news unfavorable to their readers' worldview.  I think this is true of ANY partisan editorial board, from the New York Times, NPR and the US AID-Funded Politico to FOX, Wall Street Journal and the Gateway Pundit.  Both major parties' partisans miss out on a balanced view of the truth.  

Despite my best efforts, after seeing so many omissions from liberal leaning sources, I  am more likely to get into the non-liberal sources, but to your point PosBearWI, that puts me at risk of being pulled into a bubble.  I  think I am as subject to anyone else is to propaganda and failing to kick the tires of a source.  To help me combat that, I try to go to the sources of information to see whether my interpretation is the same as or similar to the reporter's interpretation or the editorial source's information.  Frankly, that takes a FUCKLOAD of time, so I  certainly don't blame people if they accept things at face value from a trusted source just to protect their time commitment.  I  also try to read a diversity of sources and hopefully to find contradictory viewpoints to help me asses and triangulate the truth value of what I  am hearing or reading.  I    also assess how much "data" is being presented as opposed to how much "assertion" is happening in the article.  Most "objective" and even "partisan" sources find it difficult to avoid all assertion, and all get a different percentage of data versus assertions in the mix.  I   try to assess the logic of the article.  I   also try to "follow the money" to try to get a sense of who may be benefiting from the spin, the omission, or the focus.  It's definitely a messy world.  I don't begrudge people coming to different conclusions than I do and placing different truth value on different sources.  

PozBearWI, whatever conclusion you come to about ActBlue, I don't get the sense from your question to me "@nanana reading your reply above has me thinking maybe fox is all you listen to?" that you were even aware that ActBlue was being investigated, which makes me think you rely on sources that limit your access to full information.  So, what sources do you rely on to get your complete picture? (I ask respectfully and not to win an argument.  It would not make me happy @PozBearWI to impose a worldview on you...).