From one of my favorite Progressives:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmP6gUwEDxw

Just a few current examples among the many over the past few years:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKudnp-_c0w

BlueAnon--why Russiagate disinformation never ends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AXcjwX-JGA

Thinking back to the Bush era, can't say I ever would have predicted I'd live in a time when conservatives would spend all day attacking Cheney and favorably citing Glenn Greenwald. Live long enough, as they say...

Thinking back to the Bush era, can't say I ever would have predicted I'd live in a time when conservatives would spend all day attacking Cheney and favorably citing Glenn Greenwald. Live long enough, as they say...

Don't know specifically to whom you are referring. If its me, I don't spend all day attacking Cheney . . . don't recall doing it at all, though I think she deserves being "attacked".

Glenn Greenwald and I differ fundamentally about what our federal government, or government in general, should do or what it constitutionally can do. He is the rather rare journalist from the left who is objective and honest. I wouldn't doubt that he has written many articles with which I have some disagreement. But there are some progressive journalists that I respect in spite of their having a fundamentally different political view than mine. Glenn Greenwald is one of them. And I like citing them to quash the silly but convenient knee jerk dismissal by this site's lefties of any "conservative" journalist's opinion as being, ipso facto, biased.

Of course, when Greenwald wanders into what Dems consider traitorous, they disown him with their boiler plate condemnations.

Apparently you've lived long enough to see Republicans spend day after day ad nauseum attacking a Republican President with unproven, even obviously false accusations with the intention of defeating him and handing over control of the federal government to the Democrats--more radical Democrats, at that, than those in the days of FDR and Woodrow wilson.

And you've lived long enough to see the Democrat's about face, shifting from their signature hate of agencies like the CIA and FBI and their animosity against corporatism and monopolies, into a symbiotic support of and cooperation with what they once hated--all supported by our Progressive corporate media suppression of opposing speech and by our Progressively oriented higher and lower education system. All working hand in hand to create a fascistic state capitalist super state. And sparing no lie, deceit, pliant mass immigration, and novel Progressive "interpretation" of law to gather the power with which, for the good of "the people," they can, unobstructed, shape and define what life, thought, and humanity is and means in our time.

Sure now you align with Glenn “9/11 was an inside job” Greenwald and push the agenda of the despot President George Washington, warned about in farewell, 1796, when he said that America might someday face “despotism.” He said that “disorders and miseries” might cause some Americans “to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual,” leading to “the ruins of public liberty.”
Because of course the usual claims that the evil ....others will deprive you of something you never had, be very afraid and your only salvation is supporting the former guy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure now you align with Glenn “9/11 was an inside job” Greenwald and push the agenda of the despot President George Washington, warned about in farewell, 1796, when he said that America might someday face “despotism.” He said that “disorders and miseries” might cause some Americans “to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual,” leading to “the ruins of public liberty.”
Because of course the usual claims that the evil ....others will deprive you of something you never had, be very afraid and your only salvation is supporting the former guy


I can't say that I fully understand your rather incoherent post. But, as to what I "align with", I don't align with Greenwald's opinion of Trump, Nor do I align with Greenwald's Progressive view of government. Nor with much that is fundamental to his personal opinions, that I am aware of, about what we humans are. And I specifically said that he has written many articles with which I disagree.

But I do align with his insistence on reporting what is actually corroborated and reasonably proven (not merely conjectured) to be true. And his willingness to call out the lies and deceptions of not only so-called "conservatives," but of those who supposedly align with his Progressive ideology.

There are honest Progressive journalists and commentators such as Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Maté, & Jimmy Dore, and others, who don't like Trump, don't politically side with Republicans or "conservatives," but insist on old fashioned journalistic standards, and who called out the uncorroborated BS crap about Trump that the corporate media incessantly pushed as fact simply in order to get rid of him. I respect that, and, of course, cite their documented debunking of the leftist media's lies which folks like you gobbled up as the truth. I also appreciate, and align with their view on what is essentially (though they don't use the term) "fake news."

And the "despotism" that various founders, as well as like-minded commentators such as De Tocqueville, warned against was not only "in the absolute power of an individual," but in the absolute power of unchecked, unlimited government acting on behalf of the "welfare" of the people. Which is the basis, the soft despotism, of Progressive political ideology.

There was no realistic chance that Trump would get absolute power. There was not really the sliver of a chance that he would get that--in spite of the Democrat and supportive corporate media strenuously concocted narratives that somehow implied that he would.

But our current melding of Progressive media, Progressive corporations, Progressive education, Progressive culture, and Progressive government powers has a far, far, greater chance of obtaining absolute power. And it is in the interest of that monopolistic, fascistic, Hobbesian political behemoth of amalgamated power to distract us with false narratives and utopian promises before we catch on to what is happening.

Three federal judges in D.C. have had some extraordinary things to say about former Attorney General William Barr. In March 2020, Judge Reggie B. Walton said Mr. Barr could not be trusted.
Then Judge Emmet G. Sullivan expressed strong doubts in December 202 about the legitimacy of Attorney General William P. Barr’s decision to try to end the case against Mr. Flynn.
Now Judge Amy Berman Jackson said Monday that the Justice Department’s obfuscation appeared to be part of a pattern in which top officials like Barr were untruthful to Congress and the public about the investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Three federal judges in D.C. have had some extraordinary things to say about former Attorney General William Barr. In March 2020, Judge Reggie B. Walton said Mr. Barr could not be trusted.
Then Judge Emmet G. Sullivan expressed strong doubts in December 202 about the legitimacy of Attorney General William P. Barr’s decision to try to end the case against Mr. Flynn.
Now Judge Amy Berman Jackson said Monday that the Justice Department’s obfuscation appeared to be part of a pattern in which top officials like Barr were untruthful to Congress and the public about the investigation.


What does that have to do with this thread? It is not a cogent response to any post here. Shall we dump into this thread what every federal judge has to say or has said? I am not interested in various judges' opinion on Barr's trustworthiness, or what doubts they have, or what they think something "appears" to be. The verdicts in actual contested cases is what matters.

You’re the one posting Greenwald’s false claims about the former guys Russian connections
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's the short version of what Judge Jackson and the others are saying; the Mueller Report found that Trump committed 11 federal felonies and Barr covered it up along with other violations, exactly as many said 2 years ago. For 2 years, hidden from the public because Barr lied to a federal court.

You’re the one posting Greenwald’s false claims about the former guys Russian connections


The federal judges personal opinions were not only not about this thread, they were not proof that Greenwald made false claims. And I have learned that when you claim something is false it is usually conjecture and far from truth or proof.

Here's the short version of what Judge Jackson and the others are saying; the Mueller Report found that Trump committed 11 federal felonies and Barr covered it up along with other violations, exactly as many said 2 years ago. For 2 years, hidden from the public because Barr lied to a federal court.

You'll need to be specific about to what federal felonies you are referring, and did Mueller say they actually were or that they could be. If you're speaking about the possible obstructions of justice that he mentioned, even he said that they could be interpreted in other ways rather than obstruction so could not be positively construed as obstruction. So they could only found to be actual obstruction in a criminal trial, not by an off the cuff personal opinion of a judge.

And if you keep using this thread to hash over the Mueller report, or to keep using it as a venue for whatever "get Trump" bug is up your arse, I recommend that John just shuts it down, and you can find another thread to hijack.

Looks to me like he could just make you moderator of this forum
I’m just glad we still have two parties in our political system: the Democratic Party and the anti-democratic party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Looks to me like he could just make you moderator of this forum
I’m just glad we still have two parties in our political system: the Democratic Party and the anti-democratic party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess that sort of fits into this thread. It's a sort of fake news. Actually, we have more than two functioning parties in this country. And they do take away some votes from other parties. And two of them, the socialist and the communist parties are fairly influential. The head of the Communist Party USA has explicitly said that they work to get Democrats elected--in order to move the country to a point when communism will more readily be accepted by Americans. The CPUSA once sued the Democrat Party for running on basically the Communist party platform. The Democrats, Communists, and Socialists, are varying shades or degrees of an unlimited centralized system of government--that absolute power that you fear.

I guess that sort of fits into this thread. It's a sort of fake news. Actually, we have more than two functioning parties in this country. And they do take away some votes from other parties. And two of them, the socialist and the communist parties are fairly influential. The head of the Communist Party USA has explicitly said that they work to get Democrats elected--in order to move the country to a point when communism will more readily be accepted by Americans. The CPUSA once sued the Democrat Party for running on basically the Communist party platform. The Democrats, Communists, and Socialists, are varying shades or degrees of an unlimited centralized system of government--that absolute power that you fear.

A little Alinskyish, don't you think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQps-uBKY3I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83WsgVnIQ8k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wqOa9U1ZOA

Even the insurrection participants now know what’s fake news
“Attorney for Capitol defendant Anthony Antonio said his client had “Foxitus” and “Foxmania” from watching six months of Fox News and started “believing what was being fed to him” by Fox News and the president.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A little Alinskyish, don't you think



I think you're trying to make fake correlations.

Even the insurrection participants now know what’s fake news
“Attorney for Capitol defendant Anthony Antonio said his client had “Foxitus” and “Foxmania” from watching six months of Fox News and started “believing what was being fed to him” by Fox News and the president.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, corporate media peddles fake news. That's what I've been pointing out. Lefties and Anti-Trumpsters have been accusing Fox News of that for a long time. I've been trying to show, that even honest lefties see the political fakeness of the rest of the corporate media, and how you all Anti-Trumpsters believed what they fed to you.

BTW, labeling the DC riots as an "insurrection" is another example of blatant fake news. Why didn't the leftist corporate media call the Seattle occupation an insurrection? Didn't the Seattle rioters actually claim they created a separate autonomous self-governing police free zone in the city? And the Capitol riots were puny compared to the seemingly never ending occupation of Portland. BLM and Antifa destructions were justified as righteous push back against so-called white racism and white nationalism, even though many non-white properties were destroyed.

Why are things or people who or which are not racist labelled by leftist corporate media as racism or racists?

Don’t worry laws banning speech have already been passed in some states, but we are finally starting to see a media recognition about how "critical race theory" is a carefully constructed moral panic.
These laws serve multiple purposes: they are culture war fodder with a racial valence to distract from the GOP's threadbare economic policies. While obviously unconstitutional, they will still succeed in chilling speech by teachers/faculty who don't want to be pilloried on Fox.
Media, esp. local media & right wing media, have largely accepted the framing of CRT as a dangerous theory that must be stopped, rather than as an unconstitutional attack on free speech motivated by a desire to stop conversations about race and power.
Republican politicians started strategically calling all accurate historical information about racial inequality "critical race theory" and a lot of media outlets are just uncritically running with the phrase now.
"Critical race theory" is a real thing, of course, but the political strategy here is concept stretching and, well, it appears to be working.
It's really representative of what the GOP messaging typically does; take an obscure concept that is vague to the general public, build it up as a straw man, and then run against the giant straw man they built.

I don't agree with CRT, but what the GOP labels stuff is not CRT.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don’t worry laws banning speech have already been passed in some states, but we are finally starting to see a media recognition about how "critical race theory" is a carefully constructed moral panic.

Interesting. Didn't know that some states are banning speech. I'm not for that. Please tell us what those anti-speech laws are.

These laws serve multiple purposes: they are culture war fodder with a racial valence to distract from the GOP's threadbare economic policies. While obviously unconstitutional, they will still succeed in chilling speech by teachers/faculty who don't want to be pilloried on Fox.

Didn't realize that GOP's economic policies are threadbare. They were very successful under Trump. By threadbare do you mean they need more policies, that they are short on policies?
That more policies, more "threads" create better economies? More policies, the way I see it, lead to greater government control. You do seem to favor a bigger, more powerful, more centralized government.


Media, esp. local media & right wing media, have largely accepted the framing of CRT as a dangerous theory that must be stopped, rather than as an unconstitutional attack on free speech motivated by a desire to stop conversations about race and power.
Republican politicians started strategically calling all accurate historical information about racial inequality "critical race theory" and a lot of media outlets are just uncritically running with the phrase now.
"Critical race theory" is a real thing, of course, but the political strategy here is concept stretching and, well, it appears to be working.
It's really representative of what the GOP messaging typically does; take an obscure concept that is vague to the general public, build it up as a straw man, and then run against the giant straw man they built.

I don't agree with CRT, but what the GOP labels stuff is not CRT.


So what do you say CRT is? And what about it do you disagree?

Here are two dialogues on the effects of CRT between two Blacks with elite academic credentials and who are not Fox News devotees, nor who are not Republicans or Trump supporters

In this first one you can skip the first 2.40 minutes of promotional info:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNfzT-s6LHE&t=2s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82HA4raBiOw

On january 12, keith Ammon, a Republican member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, introduced a bill that would bar schools as well as organizations that have entered into a contract or subcontract with the state from endorsing “divisive concepts.” Specifically, the measure would forbid “race or sex scapegoating,” questioning the value of meritocracy, and suggesting that New Hampshire—or the United States—is “fundamentally racist.”
Ammon’s bill is one of a dozen that Republicans have recently introduced in state legislatures and the United States Congress that contain similar prohibitions. In Arkansas, lawmakers have approved a measure that would ban state contractors from offering training that promotes “division between, resentment of, or social justice for” groups based on race, gender, or political affiliation. The Idaho legislature just passed a bill that would bar institutions of public education from compelling “students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere” to specific beliefs about race, sex, or religion. The Louisiana legislature is weighing a nearly identical measure.

The language of these bills is anodyne and fuzzy—compel, for instance, is never defined in the Idaho legislation—and that ambiguity appears to be deliberate. According to Ammon, “using taxpayer funds to promote ideas such as ‘one race is inherently superior to another race or sex’ … only exacerbates our differences.” But critics of these efforts warn that the bills would effectively prevent public schools and universities from holding discussions about racism; the New Hampshire measure in particular would ban companies that do business with government entities from conducting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. “The vagueness of the language is really the point,” Leah Cohen, an organizer with Granite State Progress, a liberal nonprofit based in Concord, told me. “With this really broad brushstroke, we anticipate that that will be used more to censor conversations about race and equity.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On january 12, keith Ammon, a Republican member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, introduced a bill that would bar schools as well as organizations that have entered into a contract or subcontract with the state from endorsing “divisive concepts.” Specifically, the measure would forbid “race or sex scapegoating,” questioning the value of meritocracy, and suggesting that New Hampshire—or the United States—is “fundamentally racist.”

Isn't a key word here "endorsing"? That doesn't bar "discussing" an issue or the pros and cons of a given theory or a comparison of various theories or concepts.

And "race or sex scapegoating" is defined as "assigning fault, blame, or bias to a race or sex, or to members of a race or sex because of their race or sex, and includes claims that, consciously or unconsciously, and by virtue of his or her race or sex, members of any race are inherently racist or are inherently inclined to oppress others, or that members of a sex are inherently sexist or inclined to oppress others”-- which all seem to be discriminatory against either a specific race or a specific gender.  Racial and sexual discrimination are already forbidden under law in various government institutions.

Ammon’s bill is one of a dozen that Republicans have recently introduced in state legislatures and the United States Congress that contain similar prohibitions. In Arkansas, lawmakers have approved a measure that would ban state contractors from offering training that promotes “division between, resentment of, or social justice for” groups based on race, gender, or political affiliation.

Again, a key word here is "training." "Discussing" the merits of resentment of a race or gender or political affiliation, might be useful. But conducting training courses with one point of view, especially a controversial view is not merely speech, it is indoctrination. Indoctrination is a form of suppressing speech, not promoting it.

The Idaho legislature just passed a bill that would bar institutions of public education from compelling “students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere” to specific beliefs about race, sex, or religion. The Louisiana legislature is weighing a nearly identical measure.

Key word here is "compelling." Compelling students to personally affirm specific beliefs is actually denying their free speech. To bar such compelling does not ban speech, it makes it more possible.

The language of these bills is anodyne and fuzzy—compel, for instance, is never defined in the Idaho legislation—and that ambiguity appears to be deliberate.

In law, dictionary definitions usually suffice. Various dictionary definitions don't leave much, if any, fuzziness about what it means to compel. And I don't know what is anodyne about the word "compel."

According to Ammon, “using taxpayer funds to promote ideas such as ‘one race is inherently superior to another race or sex’ … only exacerbates our differences.”

I agree that racism and sexism shouldn't be funded by taxpayers. And that promoting any racial or sexual superiority does exacerbate differences. Discussing those things should be allowed.
But promoting, or training one point of view discourages or suppresses the freedom to dissent.

But critics of these efforts warn that the bills would effectively prevent public schools and universities from holding discussions about racism;

They absolutely would not prevent schools from holding actual discussions. They would make it more difficult, perhaps, from having a course specifically devoted to the notion that a given race is inherently racist but that other races are not. But it wouldn't prevent discussions on whether a given race, and only that race, is inherently racist.

the New Hampshire measure in particular would ban companies that do business with government entities from conducting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. “The vagueness of the language is really the point,” Leah Cohen, an organizer with Granite State Progress, a liberal nonprofit based in Concord, told me. “With this really broad brushstroke, we anticipate that that will be used more to censor conversations about race and equity.”


This last paragraph is ironic. It employs vague language such as "conducting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs" to criticize the far less vague language of the bills. And the bills don't censor conversations (another vague accusation), they make indoctrination more difficult.

I asked you "So what do you say CRT is? And what about it do you disagree?" I would be very interested in your answer--even though the subject of this thread has so thoroughly been breached to the point of who gives a damn.

Far beyond CRT now
Suddenly everybody’s a student of critical horse race theory
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Far beyond CRT now
Suddenly everybody’s a student of critical horse race theory
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You do have a penchant for latching onto notions that easily go "poof!" under close examination.

You do have a penchant for latching onto notions that easily go "poof!" under close examination.

You mean like your claims about the end of the USA as we know it?
Did you claim Bill Clinton, in office 8 years, would usher in socialism. Then Obama, in office 8 years, would bring socialism. Now it's Biden will bring socialism.
Care to explain why the US still isn't socialist despite the fear mongering?

You mean like your claims about the end of the USA as we know it?

I might have said that here once. Don't remember. I may also have quoted someone saying that. Don't remember.

But "the end of the USA as we know it" has been happening almost every generation or two. Would the Founders claim that this present USA is the one they knew? Would Lincoln and the late 19th Century Americans claim the current USA as one like their own? What would Coolidge think? What would the average American from the founding to 1960 say? What would the grandparents and parents of our current young Americans say?

Hasn't the goal of our leftists from Woodrow Wilson to FDR and from LBJ to the present been to transform America? Even fundamentally transform it?

The phrase "end of America (or USA) as we know it" means different things to different people. To many leftists, if not most, it would mean something good, something desired, something rightly to be achieved (or as Shakespeare wrote, "a consummation devoutly to be wish’d."

What it means to me is not the expected cultural, technological, and low level or constitutional political changes, but the ongoing and final transformation from a Constitutional Republic to a centralized administrative state.

Did you claim Bill Clinton, in office 8 years, would usher in socialism. Then Obama, in office 8 years, would bring socialism. Now it's Biden will bring socialism.

I'm sure I've thrown the word "socialism" around, probably inaccurately, from time to time. Most of us, especially the so-called "conservatives," tend to refer to any thing more than moderately leftist as being "socialism."

But even many or most average American leftists use the word incorrectly, referring to the kind of government that European countries have, especially Sweden and Denmark. Those countries are not governed by socialism. To varying degrees, they are welfare states, not socialist (as in socialism) countries.

Care to explain why the US still isn't socialist despite the fear mongering?

If you mean why we are not yet ruled by true socialism, I'll give it a shot. Probably for the same reason that either we don't have countries that are under a true state of socialism, or that cannot sustain a state of true socialism as in "the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Because "the community as a whole" either cannot, or cannot as well and constantly, create and innovate things to produce as can individuals motivated to do so--and that motivation is, in the main, driven by a desire for some sort of profit.

There could, conceivably, be a relatively brief period of time in which some socialist revolution nationalized an existing system of production and just kept repeating essentially the same methods of production, and the same products. But over time, without entrepreneurs (especially profit seeking entrepreneurs), the socialist system would collapse due to stagnation, due to the lack of change needed to satisfy those substantial numbers of "citizens" who seek various meaning to their lives other than being a cog in the monotonous turning wheel of the "community as a whole." As well, such a system, because it is authoritarian in nature, is inherently ripe for being corrupted by inevitable power seekers who either lust for power, or who gain power in order get more of what they desire than the system provides.

And so a socialist (as in socialism) system, for many reasons, including human nature, is more likely to lead to a far more authoritarian scheme in which the desired utopia transforms into the human nightmare in which individuals become purely a pawn of the state--Marx claimed that socialism was the interim stepping stone from capitalism to communism.

My fear is not that we will become a socialist state. For the above reasons that is not likely, at least not for long. But that something worse will happen. That we will lose that constitutional anchor which keeps us moored in the calmer, more secure, waters of individual freedom, and will cast us adrift into the dangerous seas of unchecked authoritarian statism.

Close examination of the direction we have been drifting into is that regulatory state which is cousin to socialism or economic fascism. We already to a great degree have been transformed into an administrative state. Our courts almost always defer to administrative law over Constitutional law when regulatory agency law is being challenged. I don't believe that it can be denied that the central federal government is far more powerful than it was in the beginning, and has incrementally grown so from generation to generation. Our government has grown, almost constantly--larger and more powerful and more authoritarian.

And if I were to stick a label on it, I would say that our present iteration of American central government, is a burgeoning form of economic fascism combined with a socialistic regulatory scheme. It is a behemoth complex of big business wedded to a big government regulator and enforcer. The only direction it can grow into from here is the total assimilation of huge corporations with the administrative state into an unlimited form of government--call it what you will.

A really good take (from a couple of my favorite Progressive journalists) on the failure of true journalism during the Covid-19 pandemic and the Trump era. It also touches on the illusion of media "fact checking,"--and the shaming of those differing with the the then current but changing "follow the science" narrative,--and the constantly changing and inconsistent media "truth."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6D8bQs-E8A

Progressive journalists join with Conservative journalists against corporate media fake news (12 minutes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF1JoQIxwF0

let's not forget that glenn greenwald has a pet billionaire who used to fund the intercept a newspaper he founded (with this billionaire money) and used to work at
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

let's not forget that glenn greenwald has a pet billionaire who used to fund the intercept a newspaper he founded (with this billionaire money) and used to work at
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your typical insinuation that somehow is supposed to mean something.

Just four minutes or so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVypdSod6Bc

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/sudden-shift-in-covid-19-lab-leak-narrative-mysterious-evolutionary-biologist_3884058.html?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-07-02-2&mktids=409fc0244b9e527bfa0fcf1bc9458780&est=Uogc6PZ1TadeOh45qfQxVBJSIuTSa%2B6WqxQJcdGjUrXH weROXrA3x1ztWkl%2FQJ6w

Ahh, those lab leak clicks. If it was a lab leak, Trump failed. If it was zoonotic, Trump failed. If it was a full scale bio attack, Trump failed. The press needs to separate the scientific need to trace origins from any notion that the answer will vindicate Trump in any way.
Obviously an overall foreign relations need to know too, but if China played Trump to their advantage, they'd hardly be unique among foreign powers in that regard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahh, those lab leak clicks. If it was a lab leak, Trump failed. If it was zoonotic, Trump failed. If it was a full scale bio attack, Trump failed. The press needs to separate the scientific need to trace origins from any notion that the answer will vindicate Trump in any way.
Obviously an overall foreign relations need to know too, but if China played Trump to their advantage, they'd hardly be unique among foreign powers in that regard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, the thread and the post was not about Trump. It was about fake news.

Russia gate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Russia gate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

BlueAnon--why Russiagate disinformation never ends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AXcjwX-JGA

Sure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yup

Of course, we all know that our intelligence agencies use the media to shape our thoughts. So it's OK . . . right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9bKEPWviEU

It's really simple actually, if you talk to our enemies it will be picked up by our spies that monitor them.

One possible explanation for Tucker Carlson’s claim to have been spied on by NSA is that he had a back channel with Russian operatives and was trying to get ahead of allegations that he was coordinating with Russian agents.

Particularly if the communications implicating Carlson were damning and potentially illegal, leaking them to him would be an easy way to flip the story, and accuse NSA of spying rather than Carlson of coordinating with Russian agents. Again, that’s all just a hypothetical that might explain Carlson’s claims.

Overnight, Jonathan Swan — who’s a political reporter, not a surveillance reporter — described that sources claimed authorities had obtained communications from Tucker Carlson’s efforts to get an interview with Vladimir Putin. Swan describes that Tucker had two intermediaries with Russia, but they live in the US. (I had hypothesized these might be Ukrainian sources, but Swan suggests they’re Russians.)

Two sources familiar with Carlson’s communications said his two Kremlin intermediaries live in the United States, but the sources could not confirm whether both are American citizens or whether both were on U.S. soil at the time they communicated with Carlson.

Swan doesn’t note that if the surveillance happened in the US, it would have formally been an FBI intercept, not an NSA one (just as the intercepts showing Mike Flynn’s secret back channel with Russia were collected by the FBI). But he does a good job of laying out the most likely ways this happened, which is that the NSA or FBI were surveilling the kind of people they’re supposed to surveil: Russian agents, whether overt or covert.

The first — and least likely — scenario is that the U.S. government submitted a request to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor Carlson to protect national security.
A more plausible scenario is that one of the people Carlson was talking to as an intermediary to help him get the Putin interview was under surveillance as a foreign agent.
In that scenario, Carlson’s emails or text messages could have been incidentally collected as part of monitoring this person, but Carlson’s identity would have been masked in any intelligence reports.
In order to know that the texts and emails were Carlson’s, a U.S. government official would likely have to request his identity be unmasked, something that’s only permitted if the unmasking is necessary to understand the intelligence.
The import of the agency involved — FBI or NSA — is that “unmasking” works quite differently for the FBI, which has a duty to guard against spying in this country. FBI agents tracking a known Russian agent might review such communications to find out if a high profile US journalist was being recruited by a known Russia spy. And if this was the FBI, it might explain how it recently became known: because Merrick Garland’s DOJ is trying to disclose all the tracking of journalists that took place under the Trump Administration.

This entire faux scandal feels just like ones that Devin Nunes has twice sown, first when Republican members of Congress got picked up undermining US policy with Bibi Netanyahu, and then again when Trump’s Transition team set up a secret back channel meeting with UAE. Each time Nunes has done this, it was with the seeming intent of flipping the scandalous efforts of Republicans to undermine US policy.

That’s consistent with Tucker’s claim that his source is “in a position to know.”

The whistleblower, who’s in a position to know, repeated back to us information about a story we are working from that could have only come directly from my texts and emails. There’s no other possible source for that information, period. The NSA captured that information without our knowledge and did it for political reasons.

But it also means that, if true, then Tucker and his source — whom Tucker himself suggests had a need to know — just burned intercepts on legitimate surveillance targets from a hostile country.

Plus, there’s a far bigger problem with Tucker’s currently operative story. Jason Leopold liberated Tucker’s FOIA request to obtain what he claims would be proof of this spying. Whether intentionally or because of incompetence, the FOIA was written in such a way that it is guaranteed to fail to find anything, because it uses language that NSA would understand to mean communications targeting Tucker (and, specifically, communications obtained from physical possession of Tucker’s phone).

More interesting than the failure by design is the scope. Tucker believes these sensitive communications — ostensibly a recent effort to set up an interview with Vladimir Putin — extend from January 1, 2019 until June 28, 2021, the date he first revealed this.

That’s thirty months he has been working with Russian back channels, purportedly to set up a meeting with Putin.

That, by itself, may explain why the communications generated further attention (if indeed they did). Thirty months isn’t the pursuit of an interview, it’s a long term relationship. This would look like a recruitment effort, not journalism.

It also explains why, even though Tucker himself is the person who leaked these details (again, burning what by all accounts are legitimate intercept targets), he claims it was an effort to take him off the air. If the FBI believes that Tucker really was pursuing a long-term relationship with Russian agents, then even Fox News might rethink giving him a platform. But that wouldn’t be the content of the communications, per se, but the fact that they appear to have been going on for thirty months.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYkh05F4LAQ

Ahh more youtube truth

Now, true knowledge of Saint Rampal Ji Maharaj is spreading rapidly, India is becoming a dowry free, drug-free, corruption-free and evil free.
- Earth To Heaven.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGYY975zXI

Ahh more youtube truth

Now, true knowledge of Saint Rampal Ji Maharaj is spreading rapidly, India is becoming a dowry free, drug-free, corruption-free and evil free.
- Earth To Heaven.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGYY975zXI

He sounds a lot like you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOuFNiEttf8

Would a "reporter" lie?

Tucker Carlson's lawyers say yes

Ms. McDougal alleges that the host of the show, Tucker Carlson, accused
her of extorting now-President Donald J. Trump out of approximately $150,000 in exchange for
her silence about an alleged affair between Ms. McDougal and President Trump. After the case
was removed from New York state court, Fox News moved to dismiss Ms. McDougal’s claim on the grounds that Mr. Carlson’s statements were not statements of fact.

Of course reporters lie. News media lies. A bunch of fake news. In it we trust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH1qfFMu2eE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEgbRDeQNwo

So what’s your point
You cite Greenwald and Carlson as truthful amongst all the lying reporters.
Now tell us how Alan Dershowitz is the only honest lawyer
You’ve ingested too much bleach and been exposed to too much UV light internally
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what’s your point
You cite Greenwald and Carlson as truthful amongst all the lying reporters.
Now tell us how Alan Dershowitz is the only honest lawyer
You’ve ingested too much bleach and been exposed to too much UV light internally


It's no surprise you miss my point. Maybe being so deeply and continuously immersed in the importance of your horse blinders version of Trump it's tough to see anything, even if it's not about Trump, that you think might hurt it.

So what would be the right amount of bleach to ingest and the right amount of UV light to internally be exposed to?

Hey, this has nothing to do with Trump, and wouldn't hurt the Trump narrative that you expose yourself to . . . maybe too much. Give it a try, maybe you'll find some point in it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQN4c3uN_tA

The Rest of the Story

Fox hosts are relentlessly attacking the vaccination campaign against the coronavirus. Their nightly effort to delegitimize the vaccines is a big problem.
The vaccines are miraculously safe and effective against the virus and its variants. But if you watch Fox, you hear a stream of stories about how they may not work and may kill you if you take them, along with aggrieved rants about the Biden administration effort.

It didn't have to be this way. It’s easy to imagine a world in which Fox hosts relentlessly talked up how Donald Trump had made the vaccines possible and how if viewers got vaccinated, the dreaded masks and lockdowns would be gone forever.
But Fox Corp. CEO Lachlan Murdoch has described the network as the “loyal opposition” to the Biden administration, and that includes the fight to vaccinate the public against the pandemic.

So now huge swaths of Republicans say they are not and will not be vaccinated. It's a culture war issue rather than a health one because that's the lens through which Fox presents the world to its viewers.
We're headed for a scenario in which Democrats are vaccinated and Republicans aren't, and a lot of Fox viewers end up dead because they listened to the network instead of getting shots.

The cumulative result will be more viral proliferation, more variants, until the vaccine's efficacy is reduced to nothing.
They are the reason we are where we are now, and the reason this is never going to end.

The Rest of the Story

Fox hosts are relentlessly attacking the vaccination campaign against the coronavirus. Their nightly effort to delegitimize the vaccines is a big problem.
The vaccines are miraculously safe and effective against the virus and its variants. But if you watch Fox, you hear a stream of stories about how they may not work and may kill you if you take them, along with aggrieved rants about the Biden administration effort.

It didn't have to be this way. It’s easy to imagine a world in which Fox hosts relentlessly talked up how Donald Trump had made the vaccines possible and how if viewers got vaccinated, the dreaded masks and lockdowns would be gone forever.
But Fox Corp. CEO Lachlan Murdoch has described the network as the “loyal opposition” to the Biden administration, and that includes the fight to vaccinate the public against the pandemic.

So now huge swaths of Republicans say they are not and will not be vaccinated. It's a culture war issue rather than a health one because that's the lens through which Fox presents the world to its viewers.
We're headed for a scenario in which Democrats are vaccinated and Republicans aren't, and a lot of Fox viewers end up dead because they listened to the network instead of getting shots.

The cumulative result will be more viral proliferation, more variants, until the vaccine's efficacy is reduced to nothing.
They are the reason we are where we are now, and the reason this is never going to end.

Your "rest of the story" is actually "part of the story." Part of the old story that Fox News is Faux News. I've been pointing out "the rest of the story" that it's not just Fox News. Nor has it been proven that Fox is the worst. Quite the contrary.

News media has to a great degree been corrupted, not just by the natural and historical tendency for news agencies to become internally politicized, but more insidiously done so by cooperation with government agencies.

BTW, your post seems to be verbatim snatches of Media Matters rhetoric, which is not unbiased nor apolitical.

Some of the least vaccinated states are the most pro-Trump. Trump won 17 of the 18 states with the lowest adult vaccination rates. Many of these states have high proportions of whites without college degrees.

The irony is that many of those who now deride the vaccines also objected to lockdowns, social distancing, and the wearing of masks. In a rational world, they would see the vaccines as a ticket back to normal life.

Instead, at this moment, they have chosen to go full anti-vax. Even with hundreds of thousands of dead, and hospitals again filling up, the lies continue; media types tell them to get clicks and likes; pols spread the lies to raise their profile and bring in cash.

And their recklessness will kill people. This is not hyperbole.

The toll of the lies —the tweets, cable hits, and performative demagoguery — can be measured in human lives. The right’s burst of dishonesty means that more fathers, mothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, even children will die.

How to describe the enormity of the malignancy here? Words like “irrational” and “insane,” don’t cover it.

In the law, however, there is category known as “depraved indifference to human life,” which “reflects a wicked, evil or inhuman state of mind, as manifested by brutal, heinous and despicable acts. It is evinced by conduct that is wanton, deficient in a moral sense of concern, and devoid of regard for the life or lives of others.”

It fits.

Some of the least vaccinated states are the most pro-Trump. Trump won 17 of the 18 states with the lowest adult vaccination rates. Many of these states have high proportions of whites without college degrees.

The irony is that many of those who now deride the vaccines also objected to lockdowns, social distancing, and the wearing of masks. In a rational world, they would see the vaccines as a ticket back to normal life.

Instead, at this moment, they have chosen to go full anti-vax. Even with hundreds of thousands of dead, and hospitals again filling up, the lies continue; media types tell them to get clicks and likes; pols spread the lies to raise their profile and bring in cash.

And their recklessness will kill people. This is not hyperbole.

The toll of the lies —the tweets, cable hits, and performative demagoguery — can be measured in human lives. The right’s burst of dishonesty means that more fathers, mothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, even children will die.

How to describe the enormity of the malignancy here? Words like “irrational” and “insane,” don’t cover it.

In the law, however, there is category known as “depraved indifference to human life,” which “reflects a wicked, evil or inhuman state of mind, as manifested by brutal, heinous and despicable acts. It is evinced by conduct that is wanton, deficient in a moral sense of concern, and devoid of regard for the life or lives of others.”

It fits.

Biden said that " we have Covid-19 on the run" and that "his nationwide vaccination plan are working better than expected." Seems that there is some serious fake news going on here.

Biden said that " we have Covid-19 on the run" and that "his nationwide vaccination plan are working better than expected." Seems that there is some serious fake news going on here.

Fox Corp. CEO Lachlan Murdoch has described the network as the “loyal opposition” to the Biden administration, and that includes the fight to vaccinate the public against the pandemic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fox Corp. CEO Lachlan Murdoch has described the network as the “loyal opposition” to the Biden administration, and that includes the fight to vaccinate the public against the pandemic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Loyal opposition. That's a bit better than the opposition that CNN, NBC, CBS, PBS and the other left leaning networks and media pounded Trump with. Good attempt at balancing the massive fake news from the left with fake news from the right.

Murdoch said "The main beneficiary of the Trump administration from a ratings point of view was MSNBC ... and that’s because they were the loyal opposition," Murdoch said of the rival cable network. That’s what our job is now with the Biden administration, and you’ll see our ratings really improve from here."

He didn't mention fighting against the vaccine. I don't watch TV. But I see a lot of videos from the major news networks. Most of the Fox videos re the vaccine were for it. Some pointed out various drawbacks. Some of the farther right ones like Dobbs (whom Fox got rid of) had more negative things to say about the lockdowns and questioned the negative views about hydroxychloroquine, et. al. But, mostly, I didn't see an effort to stop people from getting vaccines. Hey, they kept reminding us and bragging on it that Trump was responsible for getting them in such a short amount of time.

"Loyal opposition. That's a bit better than the opposition that CNN, NBC, CBS, PBS and the other left leaning networks and media pounded Trump with. Good attempt at balancing the massive fake news from the left with fake news from the right.

Murdoch said "The main beneficiary of the Trump administration from a ratings point of view was MSNBC ... and that’s because they were the loyal opposition," Murdoch said of the rival cable network. That’s what our job is now with the Biden administration, and you’ll see our ratings really improve from here."

He didn't mention fighting against the vaccine. I don't watch TV. But I see a lot of videos from the major news networks. Most of the Fox videos re the vaccine were for it. Some pointed out various drawbacks. Some of the farther right ones like Dobbs (whom Fox got rid of) had more negative things to say about the lockdowns and questioned the negative views about hydroxychloroquine, et. al. But, mostly, I didn't see an effort to stop people from getting vaccines. Hey, they kept reminding us and bragging on it that Trump was responsible for getting them in such a short amount of time.

Poor victim, look around the Democrats are focusing on bread-and-butter issues while their Republican counterparts get big mad about Dr. Seuss’s self-cancellation and Caravans! All Lives Matter! CNN and Fredo! Flag Burning! Murder Antifa! Kneeling NFL Players!
And then claiming that "The tourists weren't yelling 'Hang Mike Pence,' they were yelling 'Hang My Pants'"

Republican bigwigs spent last weekend participating in an anti-vaccine, election truthing freak show in Texas that could best be described as All Culture; No Cattle. And the entire party unified last week around the fabricated and deadly culture war that vilifies public servants who are simply trying to offer people a life-saving vaccine in the comfort of their own home.

Now with Newsmax and OANN pushing the right further into lala land, never mind those lefties at Fox, you have a Newsmax host suggesting vaccines are “against nature,” and some diseases are “supposed to wipe out a certain amount of people”

Well, I mean he's right. Vaccines do "go against nature." Same for antibiotics, heart surgery, and, well, MEDICINE. They all help fight off the entropy, decay, and death of the natural world. The only thing idiotic here is that he seems to think that maybe that's a bad thing.
I'm thinking cooking food, wearing clothes, and living inside homes with air conditioning, heat, and plumbing goes against nature. We weren't meant to live like that.

Poor victim, look around the Democrats are focusing on bread-and-butter issues while their Republican counterparts get big mad about Dr. Seuss’s self-cancellation and Caravans! All Lives Matter! CNN and Fredo! Flag Burning! Murder Antifa! Kneeling NFL Players!
And then claiming that "The tourists weren't yelling 'Hang Mike Pence,' they were yelling 'Hang My Pants'"

Republican bigwigs spent last weekend participating in an anti-vaccine, election truthing freak show in Texas that could best be described as All Culture; No Cattle. And the entire party unified last week around the fabricated and deadly culture war that vilifies public servants who are simply trying to offer people a life-saving vaccine in the comfort of their own home.

Now with Newsmax and OANN pushing the right further into lala land, never mind those lefties at Fox, you have a Newsmax host suggesting vaccines are “against nature,” and some diseases are “supposed to wipe out a certain amount of people”

Well, I mean he's right. Vaccines do "go against nature." Same for antibiotics, heart surgery, and, well, MEDICINE. They all help fight off the entropy, decay, and death of the natural world. The only thing idiotic here is that he seems to think that maybe that's a bad thing.
I'm thinking cooking food, wearing clothes, and living inside homes with air conditioning, heat, and plumbing goes against nature. We weren't meant to live like that.

You're actually worse than CNN or Rachel Maddow. That's some really foaming at the mouth loose bowels type of logorrhea. MSNBC could use you to jack their ratings back up now that Trump is gone.

If you’re hunting for conspiracy theories, how about this one:

Trump carried out a conspiracy to misinform the public about the pandemic & many people died as a result.

Sometimes you don’t even need to look in the shadows for the conspiracy when one is right out in the open.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you’re hunting for conspiracy theories, how about this one:

Trump carried out a conspiracy to misinform the public about the pandemic & many people died as a result.

Sometimes you don’t even need to look in the shadows for the conspiracy when one is right out in the open.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you started that conspiracy theory. At least on this forum. As far as I'm concerned, to use a phrase that you relentless ad-nauseum anti-Trumpers like to fakely throw around, it has been "debunked."

If you’re hunting for conspiracy theories, how about this one:

Trump carried out a conspiracy to misinform the public about the pandemic & many people died as a result.

Sometimes you don’t even need to look in the shadows for the conspiracy when one is right out in the open.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you’re hunting for conspiracy theories, how about this one:

Trump carried out a conspiracy to misinform the public about the pandemic & many people died as a result.

Sometimes you don’t even need to look in the shadows for the conspiracy when one is right out in the open.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you started that conspiracy theory. At least on this forum. As far as I'm concerned, to use a phrase that you relentless ad-nauseum anti-Trumpers like to fakely throw around, it has been "debunked."

600,000 dead Americans would disagree if they still could
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

600,000 dead Americans would disagree if they still could
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Much, much more dead were predicted in the beginning stages and your adding a hundred thousand under Biden and Trump made it possible to get the vaccines way, way sooner than what the old system would have required and the Dems, if their initial criticisms of Warp Speed are an indication, would have gone through the old system and far more deaths would be going on for a few more years and the U.S. mortality rate was lower than many of the major and more "successful" countries such as Germany. And various governors, who were responsible for carrying out pandemic procedures failed to do so and were more directly responsible for deaths in their states.

But, of course, none of that fits your conspiracy theory. Because you hate Trump so much, you prefer the rabid negative proclamations of our anti-Trump fake news agencies.

And you hate Trump so much that you give the real and obvious culprit, China, a pass.

Obviously as Candace Owen says
"COVID-19 is nothing but a big cover for communist rule hitting the shores of the West"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why is it that when people dig into the people you cite, they turn out to lifelong frauds?

Tucker Carlson's first grade teacher called him out for lying about her.
The Fox News broadcaster blamed the teacher, whom he identified as Mrs. Raymond, for his longtime hatred for liberals, calling the educator "a parody of earth-mother liberalism" who "wore long Indian-print skirts" and was so terrible at her job that his wealthy father was forced to hire a private tutor, but the Washington Post tracked her down for comment.
“Oh my God," said retired teacher Marianna Raymond. "That is the most embellished, crazy thing I ever heard."

Raymond, now 77 years old, denied crying at her desk, wearing Indian skirts or discussing her politics in class, but she praised her former student Carlson as "very precious and very, very polite and sweet."
She also confirmed that Carlson's father hired a tutor to help him with his school work, but Raymond told the newspaper that she was the tutor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obviously as Candace Owen says
"COVID-19 is nothing but a big cover for communist rule hitting the shores of the West"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's also a cover for you to rag on Trump.

Why is it that when people dig into the people you cite, they turn out to lifelong frauds?

I've cited several of the same people you've cited. That must mean you've cited frauds. More to the point. You have blatantly lied on this forum. Your a fraud. And you depend on media frauds to provide you with narratives.

Tucker Carlson's first grade teacher called him out for lying about her.
The Fox News broadcaster blamed the teacher, whom he identified as Mrs. Raymond, for his longtime hatred for liberals, calling the educator "a parody of earth-mother liberalism" who "wore long Indian-print skirts" and was so terrible at her job that his wealthy father was forced to hire a private tutor, but the Washington Post tracked her down for comment.
“Oh my God," said retired teacher Marianna Raymond. "That is the most embellished, crazy thing I ever heard."

Raymond, now 77 years old, denied crying at her desk, wearing Indian skirts or discussing her politics in class, but she praised her former student Carlson as "very precious and very, very polite and sweet."
She also confirmed that Carlson's father hired a tutor to help him with his school work, but Raymond told the newspaper that she was the tutor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She said Tucker was "very precious and very, very polite and sweet." I doubt she would have said that about you if she had read your posts.

Maybe she's lying. Or maybe Tucker is a very, very polite and sweet liar. Maybe he misremembered and embellished her liberalism like you embellish Trump's foibles and misstatements or outright lie about what he said.

I think she might very well have said, about many of your anti-Trump posts "That is the most embellished, crazy thing I ever heard."

Silly propogandist, when you'll lie about something from the first grade, you'll lie about anything.

You consistently repeat the fable that Trump is an honest man who puts anything ahead of his own interests.

Propaganda isn't just getting people to believe lies; it's about changing the way people think about themselves and the world. Polarization is just the beginning.

Here's a lesson on use of right-wing authoritarian tactics. Polarization brings survivalism: "it's our way or the apocalypse." Stoke fear w/triggering keywords to create appetite for authoritarian rule. Make violence - say, Jan 6- into patriotic act to "save the nation."

The Oathkeepers leader schmoozing with the GOP establishment at CPAC tells everything you need to know about the state of the Republican Party today.

Silly propogandist, when you'll lie about something from the first grade, you'll lie about anything.

That's a lie. It's propaganda to say such a thing.

You consistently repeat the fable that Trump is an honest man who puts anything ahead of his own interests.

What?!!? Another lie. When have I said that?

Propaganda isn't just getting people to believe lies; it's about changing the way people think about themselves and the world. Polarization is just the beginning.

It's what you do. You're doing it in this thread. As you have done over and over in your never-ending anti-Trump invectives.

Here's a lesson on use of right-wing authoritarian tactics. Polarization brings survivalism: "it's our way or the apocalypse." Stoke fear w/triggering keywords to create appetite for authoritarian rule. Make violence - say, Jan 6- into patriotic act to "save the nation."

What's so right-wingish about that. That Applies to authoritarian tactics of all wings.

The Oathkeepers leader schmoozing with the GOP establishment at CPAC tells everything you need to know about the state of the Republican Party today.

Yeah well the Republican Party of today is more Progressive than the Party of Reagan. And the Democrat Party is more authoritarian than the Progressive Democrats of before, certainly more so than the Party of JFK. The Democrats have their authoritarian fellow travelers, from the Progressives, to Antifa, to the socialists, to The Communist Party USA.

And it's another of your lies to say the Oathkeepers leader schmoozing with the GOP establishment at CPAC tells EVERYTHING you need to know about the state of the Republican Party today. There's a lot more going on with the G.O.P than that--whatever even that is.

You embellish, you exaggerate, you distort, you lie--good grief!! No telling what junk you must be hiding or lying about from the first grade!

Trump referred to insurrectionist Ashli Babbitt as “an innocent, wonderful, incredible woman,” and said “if that were on the other side, the person that did the shooting would be strung up and hung.” He's calling for the lynching of a Capitol police officer. And he's a traitor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump at CPAC: "If it's bad, I say it's fake. If it's good, I say, that's the most accurate poll perhaps ever."

He’s literally telling you he’s bull#^&#^&#^&#^&ting you and you still eat it up with a can of Goya beans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump referred to insurrectionist Ashli Babbitt as “an innocent, wonderful, incredible woman,” and said “if that were on the other side, the person that did the shooting would be strung up and hung.” He's calling for the lynching of a Capitol police officer. And he's a traitor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There you go again. He's not calling for a "lynching" of the police officer. He's making the comparison, true or not, of the reaction of the corporate press, the Dems, the black social justice groups. the race hustlers, and leftists of various sorts to a black police officer killing an unarmed white woman vs. their reactions when white police officers kill unarmed black men.

By your standards for Trump lying, you're lying again. A sort of the fake news you consistently spew on the forum.

You are so easily led

1. In 2020, Critical Race Theory was an obscure academic theory

In 2021, a chorus of voices claims CRT an existential threat to the country

Who is financing this effort?

We've identified an obscure foundation funding at least 21 groups attacking CRT
2. Non-profits and media orgs promoting anti-CRT hysteria keep their funding SECRET

Private foundations, however, have to disclose their spending to the IRS

Looking at this data, one group kept appearing again and again: The Thomas W. Smith Foundation
3. Who is Thomas W. Smith? He runs a hedge fund out of Boca Raton Florida and keeps a low profile

His foundation has no website, but is run by James Piereson, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute

Piereson is prolific and provides insight into what motives the foundation's giving
4. Piereson opposes all efforts to address economic or racial inequality -- even those undertaken by private charities.

He wrote about this in a series of columns published in 2019.

5. Piereson also opposes classes dedicated to the study of women, Black people, or the LGBTQ community in universities, saying these topics lack "academic rigor."
6. Piereson claims that "racial bigotry and violence against women" is not a big problem on college campuses, calling concern about such issues "irrational."

This is the person who is funding a constellation of groups attacking CRT
7. It would be hard for Piereson and the Thomas W. Smith foundation to generate excitement around tired arguments opposing diversity and racial equality.

It's easier to advocate against CRT, a term that sounds scary but no one really understands.
8. A popular.info investigation found that between 2017 and 2019, the Thomas W. Smith foundation donated $12.75 million to at least 21 organizations attacking CRT.

(The foundation's 2020 spending won't be available until later this year.)
9. The top recipient of money from the Thomas W. Smith Foundation is the Manhattan Institute.

It received $4.32 million from 2017 to 2019.

It employs Chris Rufo, who is the leading source of misinfo on CRT

Smith sits on the Manhattan Institute board
10. Other major recipients of money from the Charles W. Smith Foundation include The Heritage Foundation (525K), ALEC (425K), and the State Policy Network (3.57M), three organizations behind the flood of state legislation to ban CRT
11. The Thomas W Smith Foundation is also funding numerous media orgs that are producing an avalanche of anti-CRT columns & "reporting"

@DailyCaller (100K)
@FDRLST (100K)
@NRO (45K)
@prageru (100K)
@RealClearPR (200K)
@amspectator (210K)
@amconmag (100K)
12. The actual spending by the Thomas W. Smith foundation on anti-CRT efforts is likely much higher since we don't have 2020 spending and many of the groups set up specifically to attack CRT were not created until 2020
13. Popular.info will continue to peel back the onion and keep you informed.

We always follow the money.

For updates and accountability journalism, sign up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump at CPAC: "If it's bad, I say it's fake. If it's good, I say, that's the most accurate poll perhaps ever."

He’s literally telling you he’s bull#^&#^&#^&#^&ting you and you still eat it up with a can of Goya beans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You keep lying. You can't stop. I don't eat Goya beans.

Are you claiming Trump did not say that, don’t believe your lying eyes and ears
It’s on tape
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are so easily led

1. In 2020, Critical Race Theory was an obscure academic theory

In 2021, a chorus of voices claims CRT an existential threat to the country



The obscure "academic theory" somehow metastasized into being required to be taught or trained in Federal and other government agencies and public schools throughout the country. Did you look into who funded that? Or who funded Black Lives Matter? Or who funded Antifa? There's a lot of funding, political and otherwise, that goes into changing, or fundamentally transforming the country. If you've got a minute to spare from your insane immersion into the various leftist and anti- Trump sagas you regale us with, you might look into that. Doubt that it's any concern to you.

Curious that you didn't substantively debate the videos on CRT that I posted, but merely tried to somehow discredit them. Even in this post, you don't discuss CRT, you somehow attempt to make the anti-CRT'rs look bad. More of your deceptive sort of forum fake news?

Are you claiming Trump did not say that, don’t believe your lying eyes and ears

I did not claim that he said that. Are you using your usual insinuation, conjecture, implying method, this time by asking an insinuating question to plant the notion that I claim something that I don't nor even implied that I claim it? Your sly fakery?

It’s on tape
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, on tape . . . did you get the rest of the transcript? Here's the context in which he said it:

"Donald Trump: (01:00:23)
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. No, I said to Matt and Mercedes because I’ve done this and we’ve had… And by the way, you have a poll coming out. Unfortunately, I want to know what it is they… You know, they do that straw poll, right? Now, if it’s bad, I just say, “It’s fake.” If it’s good, I say, “That’s the most accurate poll perhaps ever.” And I know that they it. I guess it gets announced after… I want to find out, are you going to…?

Donald Trump: (01:00:55)
Oh, he won’t. He won’t tell me. I know Matt, he won’t tell me. Well, whenever the hell they get it released. I’ll tell you, here’s the story. If it’s bad, it’ll be front page news in the newspapers. If it’s great, they won’t even cover it. I hate to tell you that, Matt. And I don’t want to convince him to do a bad Poll, but you know the straw poll. So, I did this years ago and I got these great straw polls. It was the first time I ever did it. And I was a novice, but it was right here at CPAC. And I’m so proud of the jump. I mean, look at this room. Look at outside. We have thousands of people trying to come in. I mean our only thing is next time we’ll have to get a bigger place, I guess, right? Next time.

It was in the context of a forthcoming straw poll. He could tell by the success and size of his audience that the result of the straw poll would be very favorable to him. And he knew the fakery of the corporate media which would downplay the result or simply just ignore it.

But "don’t believe your lying eyes and ears." Maintain your narrative, no matter what fakery it takes.

He is a master propagandist, isn’t he.
Now spin this
“The president considers using the military to overturn an election. Any president who suggests such a thing doesn’t understand the whole point of American democratic politics. But more than that, the president doesn’t understand the American military."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is a master propagandist, isn’t he.

I have often said that you have a lot in common with him. But you're better at it than him. Your syntax is much clearer than his.

Now spin this
“The president considers using the military to overturn an election. Any president who suggests such a thing doesn’t understand the whole point of American democratic politics. But more than that, the president doesn’t understand the American military."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have an actual quote or him being "on tape" of him considering that? It's been "reported" that anonymous "insiders" have said so. He says that's fake news. It seems others, such as Flynn, have suggested the possibility of martial law in swing states to commandeer the ballots and discover the supposed fraud or some such thing.

Biden, on the other hand, is on record in a CNN interview with Trevor Noah of saying that he was "absolutely convinced" that the military would escort Trump from the White House if he loses the election but refuses to leave office.

The military is not constitutionally enabled to interfere with internal election affairs. Senior Defense Department leaders have already expressed that there is no role for the military in domestic political disputes. Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy and Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville also issued a joint statement on Friday that “there is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election.”

If Trump refused to leave, he would have been removed by the Secret Service, not the military.

Biden, as you claim about Trump, "doesn’t understand the American military."

In the above post #79 in which I provided the context for the Trump quote re how he would portray a straw poll, I assumed the context would make it plain that he wasn't talking about all straw polls in general. That may not have made clear that he was referring to a straw poll that was going to be taken by the CPAC convention he was attending when he said " And by the way, you have a poll coming out". He knew that results of the poll would be heavily in his favor. So if the media had a straw poll whose results looked bad for him he'd say it was fake, and if it was an honest poll and the results were good for him he'd say it was the most accurate ever (done by the media). Typical Trump sarcasm toward the medias constant negative reporting about him.

Sure enough, the results of the CPAC straw poll, as he knew they would were strongly in his favor. 70% said they would vote for him in a primary against the other Republican named candidates.

https://politicodailynewss.com/cpac-texas-2021-straw-poll-results-trump-wins-desantis-wins-america-wins-full-video-full-results/

🇷🇺 You should soon qualify for the Order of Honor for Excellence in spinning the Puppets speech
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

���� You should soon qualify for the Order of Honor for Excellence in spinning the Puppets speech
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, I quoted that whole part of his speech which contained your out of context quote. You used the very common method of selecting a few words out of many in order to spin what is said into fake evidence or demonstrable "proof" of how someone you hate is bad.

First you spun his words in that manner, now you use the common tactic of digressive, immaterial sarcasm to spin my words. The double spin indicates you got nothin'.

I remember when the former guy said he’d only hire the best, today he put out a statement.
Spin this

“Nobody had ever heard of some of these people that worked for me in D.C. All of a sudden, the Fake News starts calling them. Some of them—by no means all—feel emboldened, brave, and for the first time in their lives, they feel like "something special," not the losers that they are—and they talk, talk, talk!



Many say I am the greatest star-maker of all time. But some of the stars I produced are actually made of garbage.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I remember when the former guy said he’d only hire the best, today he put out a statement.
Spin this

“Nobody had ever heard of some of these people that worked for me in D.C. All of a sudden, the Fake News starts calling them. Some of them—by no means all—feel emboldened, brave, and for the first time in their lives, they feel like "something special," not the losers that they are—and they talk, talk, talk!



Many say I am the greatest star-maker of all time. But some of the stars I produced are actually made of garbage.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is whatever it is. Donald has another opinion. Not sure why I am supposed to care.

It is whatever it is. Donald has another opinion. Not sure why I am supposed to care.

Hitler never won popular the vote either. Most he ever got was 37%. He used the tools of democracy to destroy it. That’s what fascists do. Wake up.

Hitler never won popular the vote either. Most he ever got was 37%. He used the tools of democracy to destroy it. That’s what fascists do. Wake up.

We are not a democracy. We are a Republic. That is what I am concerned about. Progressives Prefer that we should be a democracy. A democracy informed by and ruled by an unrestricted form of government which functions through the will and decree of the elected elite and the "experts" they appoint to regulate every facet of our lives. It's been awhile since I was awakened to this Progressive desire to transform this country into such a democracy. Wake up.

Sometimes when I really want to hurt someone’s feelings I say “I would never pick you to run my coup.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sometimes when I really want to hurt someone’s feelings I say “I would never pick you to run my coup.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good to know.

We are not a democracy. We are a Republic. That is what I am concerned about. Progressives Prefer that we should be a democracy. A democracy informed by and ruled by an unrestricted form of government which functions through the will and decree of the elected elite and the "experts" they appoint to regulate every facet of our lives. It's been awhile since I was awakened to this Progressive desire to transform this country into such a democracy. Wake up.

Baloney
a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction . .

we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

A middle school textbook on the origins of American government would describe this “democracy” as direct or participatory democracy, something allegedly practiced by toga-clad peoples in days of yore. That is the sum total of the extent to which Madison was declaring that the Constitution did not create a democracy; neither the decisions of government nor their execution would be carried out directly by the population. And this wasn’t even an option under consideration; no one in 1787 considered nationwide DIY governance a desirable or even plausible alternative.

That’s it. To declare that America is “not a democracy” is as useful as pointing out that it is not a monarchy, or that the Pope wears a funny hat.

That Madison’s own definition of a republic directly invokes democratic processes—“a small number of citizens elected by the rest”—makes it sufficiently clear to word-understanders that there was no hard line drawn between republican and democratic principles as an either/or. The nation would be a republic, but a democratic republic. The Constitution gave powers to state legislatures, elected by the people, including the selection of electors who would choose the president. House members were elected directly. Open-ended powers like the Necessary & Proper Clause and the amendment process created the possibility for democratic participation to be expanded—and it was, slowly.

Baloney
a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction . .

we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

A middle school textbook on the origins of American government would describe this “democracy” as direct or participatory democracy, something allegedly practiced by toga-clad peoples in days of yore. That is the sum total of the extent to which Madison was declaring that the Constitution did not create a democracy; neither the decisions of government nor their execution would be carried out directly by the population. And this wasn’t even an option under consideration; no one in 1787 considered nationwide DIY governance a desirable or even plausible alternative.

That’s it. To declare that America is “not a democracy” is as useful as pointing out that it is not a monarchy, or that the Pope wears a funny hat.

That Madison’s own definition of a republic directly invokes democratic processes—“a small number of citizens elected by the rest”—makes it sufficiently clear to word-understanders that there was no hard line drawn between republican and democratic principles as an either/or. The nation would be a republic, but a democratic republic. The Constitution gave powers to state legislatures, elected by the people, including the selection of electors who would choose the president. House members were elected directly. Open-ended powers like the Necessary & Proper Clause and the amendment process created the possibility for democratic participation to be expanded—and it was, slowly.

Thanks for pointing out a version of the difference between a democracy and a republic. We are a republic . . . if we can keep it.

We are a representative democracy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We are a representative democracy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We are a constitutional democratic republic. We are a republic comprised of a union of various states. The citizens of MA cannot vote for MI representatives. Those representatives do not represent a unitary We. The only elected official of the unitary We is the President. And the electoral college in each state, who the citizens did not directly elect as such, cast the formal vote for President.

The historical objective of Progressives is the nullification of the constitutional and republic parts, recognizing, according to their scholars, that the Constitution once served a purpose but now is an impediment to the unitary We democracy they wish to replace it with.

I have asked the members on this forum several times if they think the states are necessary. No answer. Do you think it would be better if we had a fully unitary democracy? And do you agree with the Progressive notion that who we vote for should not be hampered by checks and balances or limited to a few "enumerated" powers?

You could move to the South east and secede, I saw a poll recently that a large percentage of Trumplicans there want to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You could move to the South east and secede, I saw a poll recently that a large percentage of Trumplicans there want to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why start another Civil War?

Pete F said it was time for me to post a one hour video. Here it is. This is outstanding! It wraps up how and why journalism has deteriorated from the mid 20th century until today. This is brilliant in insight and in its brevity of covering a large and long drift of journalism from a true adversarial and investigative institution, which served the need of the public to have an independent and honest eye observing and reporting what those with political and economic power are up to, into into a partnership with those establishment holders of power.

Why Journalism is Broken:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5IGzt4rzMY

Shorter video and this one actually occurs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpA4ldGoHRQ

Shorter video and this one actually occurs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpA4ldGoHRQ

The Glen Greenwald discussion on why journalism is broken did actually occur. It is a brilliantly condensed and accurate analysis.

One, that I think you would hate because, among so many other things, it specifically nails why corporate media (and you) are so virulently invested in supporting and creating all the anti-Trump conspiracies.

But it is much more than that. Trump is not commended or lauded or made to look good in any way. Greenwald is not in the least pro-Trump. He is an old school journalist who is distinctly and liberally Progressive in his politics.

It is not about Trump. It is strictly about how and why journalism, and journalists, mainly in corporate media, changed beginning in mid 20th century till now from the previous challenger and rigorous investigator and often hater of the country's power centers to being a complicit partner in the power structure's status quo agenda. He remains more uniquely independent outside of the status quo corporate media, and has a desire to find and report the malfeasance on all sides.

On the other hand, you call attention to the mundane and irrelevant sound of a flushing toilet which occurs billions of times daily on planet earth. Which reminds one of the parrot like mimicry of what has broken journalism, and how it sounds when you flush it into the forum.

DISGUSTING & DANGEROUS,” screamed the banner headline at the bottom of the television screen, just under the blonde-sheathed visage of Fox News’ Laura Ingraham. “GREENWALD BLASTS INTERCEPT FOR SMEARING INGRAHAM GUESTS.”

And so during a recent episode of The Ingraham Angle, Glenn Greenwald—who is so familiar to the top-rated cable channel’s millions of viewers that he requires only a surname—put on a suit and tie in Rio de Janeiro, where he lives, to continue doing what has occupied his energies for much of the past month.

That’s deploying every conceivable platform—from Twitter (where he has 1.6 million followers) to YouTube to Substack to an array of popular conservative websites to the very top of the ziggurat, Rupert Murdoch’s corporate cash cow—to denounce former friends and colleagues at The Intercept, the left-leaning digital news and opinion site he co-founded with Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill in 2013.

“These millennial digital liberal outlets like the Intercept, BuzzFeed, the Huffington Post, so many of them—they think that if you’re a conservative, you’re not really a journalist,” the 54-year-old Greenwald intoned (a tad weirdly, because most of his targets are in their late forties and fifties), while Ingraham could barely contain a gleeful grin. “They think that you’re part of this crypto-fascist movement, that you’re the enemy,” he added—referring to two young conservative videographers whose coverage of Black Lives Matter and other protests came under The Intercept’s withering scrutiny.

This past month has occasioned spectacular success, of a sort, for the pugnacious contrarian pundit, an erstwhile leftist journalist-turned-Donald Trump defender who once again is proving his mastery of the right-wing media ecosystem.

Indeed, in a self-perpetuating feedback loop that runs from Twitter to Fox News and back again, Greenwald has managed, like Trump before him, to orchestrate his very own news cycles.

Last year, following his exit from The Intercept, Greenwald admitted to The Daily Beast that Fox News airs its share of “horrific, toxic, damaging, destructive, and bigoted” content. However, he defended his frequent Fox hits, saying, “I have no doubt that some people at the Intercept were upset that I was going on Fox, but I would no sooner allow anyone to dictate to me which shows I can go on than I would allow anyone to censor my opinions.”

And now he is effectively operating as something of a Fox News assignment editor, as indicated by The Daily Beast’s spot check of the frequency with which Greenwald’s online musings on social media and elsewhere, especially his Substack page, have served as the basis for dozens of articles on Fox News’ website.

love when pete is fired up....

DISGUSTING & DANGEROUS,” screamed the banner headline at the bottom of the television screen, just under the blonde-sheathed visage of Fox News’ Laura Ingraham. “GREENWALD BLASTS INTERCEPT FOR SMEARING INGRAHAM GUESTS.”

Oh goodie, a Fox News banner headline. Did Greenwald write it. Doubtful. And shouldn't smearing people be blasted?

And so during a recent episode of The Ingraham Angle, Glenn Greenwald—who is so familiar to the top-rated cable channel’s millions of viewers that he requires only a surname—put on a suit and tie in Rio de Janeiro, where he lives, to continue doing what has occupied his energies for much of the past month.

Sounds like a hard working guy. But appearing on Ingraham's show? How dare he? Are you implying that's a bad thing? Or is it somebody you're quoting? Don't see any citation.

That’s deploying every conceivable platform—from Twitter (where he has 1.6 million followers) to YouTube to Substack to an array of popular conservative websites to the very top of the ziggurat, Rupert Murdoch’s corporate cash cow—to denounce former friends and colleagues at The Intercept, the left-leaning digital news and opinion site he co-founded with Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill in 2013.

Oh wow, the only thing that "has occupied his energies for much of the past month" is denouncing former friends and colleagues at The Intercept." That's a strange thing to say because I've checked out several of his videos lately and very few of the ones I've seen have solely focussed on, if at all, his former associates at The Intercept, unless he's asked, and their content is much vaster in scope than just the intercept. I know that when he left he was often questioned about them and he did comment, and even had some nice or good things to say about some of them. They certainly were not supportive of him.

And deploying every conceivable platform!! This is outrageous. And how did he miss the Progressive outlets? Are they not "conceivable"? Would they allow him to deploy them?


“These millennial digital liberal outlets like the Intercept, BuzzFeed, the Huffington Post, so many of them—they think that if you’re a conservative, you’re not really a journalist,” the 54-year-old Greenwald intoned (a tad weirdly, because most of his targets are in their late forties and fifties),

I think there is much truth to what he said. And he's not a "conservative." But, I guess, there must be some disreputable reason he said such a thing.

while Ingraham could barely contain a gleeful grin.

I commend you (or the person you're quoting) for being able to detect someone on TV barely containing something, and why shouldn't she have a gleeful grin. Rachel Maddow wouldn't gleefully grin at something a "conservative" said that mirrored her opinions? Gee, how can you be sure that a grin is gleeful, not just a grin. And why a grin, not just a smile. Ahh . . . journalism is so honest, isn't it. It just tries to give you facts, not opinions, or conjectures, or insinuations.

“They think that you’re part of this crypto-fascist movement, that you’re the enemy,” he added—referring to two young conservative videographers whose coverage of Black Lives Matter and other protests came under The Intercept’s withering scrutiny.

Uh oh, Greenwald is expressing an opinion or conjecture. How dare he. Only corporate journalists and Pete F. are allowed to do that.

This past month has occasioned spectacular success, of a sort, for the pugnacious contrarian pundit, an erstwhile leftist journalist-turned-Donald Trump defender who once again is proving his mastery of the right-wing media ecosystem.

"erstwhile leftist journalist-turned-Donald Trump defender"?--I haven't heard that he is no longer erstwhile or leftist or a journalist. Thought he was still all that (an erstwhile journalist who has leftist political views but doesn't let that cloud his journalism). Nor have I heard him defend Trump per se. He has not defended Trump as a person. Nor has he defended, on the whole, Trump's policies, personal opinions, or character. He has spoken against what he considers lies or inaccuracies about Trump that have been used as political weapons. But he has not said that he is for or in favor of Trump. He has implied or said otherwise.

Indeed, in a self-perpetuating feedback loop that runs from Twitter to Fox News and back again, Greenwald has managed, like Trump before him, to orchestrate his very own news cycles.

How dare he do such an anti-social, self perpetuating thing! It's simply indefensible and unscrupulous. No one, except Trump, apparently, has done this. And if Trump did it, it must be immoral and unprincipled.

Gee it seems like corporate media is able to orchestrate its very own news cycles. But, you know, they're the real legitimate thing. So what they do is good for us.


Last year, following his exit from The Intercept, Greenwald admitted to The Daily Beast that Fox News airs its share of “horrific, toxic, damaging, destructive, and bigoted” content.

He "admitted" to The Daily Beast (probly a part of his feedback loop). As if he "confessed" his sin of associating with Fox News. And yet he did not talk nice about it. So if he accepts invitations to go on Fox he is no longer an erstwhile leftist journalist and is therefor a Donald Trump defender. But if he talks to The Daily Beast, then he is again an erstwhile leftist journalist. Maybe he's an erstwhile journalist both ways. I think so.

However, he defended his frequent Fox hits, saying, “I have no doubt that some people at the Intercept were upset that I was going on Fox, but I would no sooner allow anyone to dictate to me which shows I can go on than I would allow anyone to censor my opinions.”

Now that sounds like an erstwhile journalist to me. But I guess, for some, like you or who you're quoting, going on Fox is abandoning journalism. And it's especially honorable if you refuse to do so if you're pressured by one-sided leftist supposed journalists.

And now he is effectively operating as something of a Fox News assignment editor, as indicated by The Daily Beast’s spot check of the frequency with which Greenwald’s online musings on social media and elsewhere, especially his Substack page, have served as the basis for dozens of articles on Fox News’ website.

"effectively operating as something of a"--now that's a beautifully effective and weaselly mouthful of nothing. You, or whoever you're quoting has demonstrated his mastery of the glib slant. Fakery of the highest linguistic order. A charlatan trying to imply that Greenwald is a fraud.

Neither you nor who you quote has pointed out what is fraudulent in Greenwald's writing or videos. You have mentioned nothing about the video discussion with him in this thread. You just go to the old trick of trying to defame him by association. Sort of a fake news thing, or calling something not by its proper name.

Glenn Greenwald is on another epic rant about evil Big Tech and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Meanwhile, we got more evidence last night of Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election as well as indictments of GOP operatives funneling Russian money to Trump in 2016.

Where is Glenn?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Glenn Greenwald is on another epic rant about evil Big Tech and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Our trust in fake news is the topic of this thread. So are you implying that what you label as an "epic rant" (I think that you use derogatory labels as a form of evidence or proof of something being bad) is fake news? Please show us what's fake about it.

BTW, if it is fake, then bad on him.

Meanwhile, we got more evidence last night of Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election as well as indictments of GOP operatives funneling Russian money to Trump in 2016.

Because you didn't put a derogatory label on those things, are you signaling that they are good and worthy efforts. Of course, if it is strictly reporting that those things occurred, without commenting or editorializing about the eventual outcome and slanting in order to shape our opinion, then that is not fake news. For you, I gather, negative "evidence" about Trump is gospel testimony of malfeasance. And proof that Trump is all manner of bad things.

Where is Glenn?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Glenn is not a beat reporter. He doesn't merely report the news. He comments on it, especially about political or legal anomalies, lies, and ramifications. I don't know if he's commented on the evidence or indictments you mentioned. I'm aware of only a few things out of the many he has written or spoken about. I don't subscribe to his podcast or log in to his Substack articles.

You can contact him if you want his opinion on something, or if he has one. And if you care to point out what is fake about his stuff, rather than merely giving it a pejorative label, that would be helpful. I think all fake news should be exposed, regardless of whose ox is gored.

Or are you just using this thread, not to expose fake news, but to keep us up to the last bit of news that can permanently demolish Trump?

Since you brought him up re fake news, I found this article by Greenwald about the ACLU interesting re its current view of government mandates on the Covid pandemic in Contrast to its recent past view of such mandates. Care to tell us what's fake about it?

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-aclu-prior-to-covid-denounced

The new revelations about the Trump campaign’s memo admitting their own Dominion claims were false will not only bolster the existing Dominion cases against Giuliani & Powell, it surely bolsters a potential new case against the Trump campaign itself if Dominion chooses to sue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The new revelations about the Trump campaign’s memo admitting their own Dominion claims were false will not only bolster the existing Dominion cases against Giuliani & Powell, it surely bolsters a potential new case against the Trump campaign itself if Dominion chooses to sue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Was the Trump campaign a news agency? Were they journalists or reporters? Is your post a distraction? A digressive, extraneous, off-topic message, equal to trolling?

Was the Trump campaign a news agency? Were they journalists or reporters? Is your post a distraction? A digressive, extraneous, off-topic message, equal to trolling?

The truth about the Trump organization and Russia is coming to light
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The truth about the Trump organization and Russia is coming to light
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Much of the truth has already come to light. Is this related to the topic of this thread or are you trolling again? You seem to enjoy trolling. Perhaps, when you imply somebody else is trolling, you actually approve of it.

Actually most of the truth was buried by Barr and obstructed by Trump

President Bush announces his endorsement of January 6 Committee Chair Liz Cheney, and that he will host a fundraiser for her reelection campaign. Trump endorsed her opponent and is livid that Bush is backing someone who voted to impeach him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

FBI Director Chris Wray tells US House committee to expect more "superseding indictments" with new charges in Jan 6 cases
But they were just tourists
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually most of the truth was buried by Barr and obstructed by Trump

Actually this is not true.

President Bush announces his endorsement of January 6 Committee Chair Liz Cheney, and that he will host a fundraiser for her reelection campaign. Trump endorsed her opponent and is livid that Bush is backing someone who voted to impeach him.


I think we all have already heard about this. Old news. And Bush was a stupid right wing war monger--not to be trusted. Troll much?

FBI Director Chris Wray tells US House committee to expect more "superseding indictments" with new charges in Jan 6 cases
But they were just tourists
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Morea old news that the media has already told us. Troll much?

I think we all have already heard about this. Old news. And Bush was a stupid right wing war monger--not to be trusted. Troll much?
Actually it is
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually it is
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes you are.

Glenn Greenwald is on another epic rant about evil Big Tech and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

So what is false about his "epic rant"?

Where is Glenn?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He continues to do great and honest work. Here's another good one dealing with fake news and fake politics. Sorry that it's not an hour long, only about 14 minutes. But really good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S63FCTb0lPk

In Glennspeak, "left-right realignment" is a concept whereby Glenn uses the most implausible explanations for why he's always sounded and acted like a Trumpist, while sometimes pretending to be a radical leftist -- albeit only when leftist policies had no chance of enactment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In Glennspeak, "left-right realignment" is a concept whereby Glenn uses the most implausible explanations for why he's always sounded and acted like a Trumpist, while sometimes pretending to be a radical leftist -- albeit only when leftist policies had no chance of enactment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are either ignorant, stupid, or a liar. Probably all those. He has not "always sounded and acted like a Trumpist". He has many times, usually, perhaps always, been the opposite of what anti-Trumpists would think a Trumpist sounds like.

I could link a lot of videos with him, or articles by him, but I'll just give you this one. And he has written for Salon, The Guardian, The Intercept, and other leftist mags, which don't publish "Trumpist" sounding articles.

Of course you haven't actually discussed any of those that I posted before, and probably won't about this one. You just either try the kill the messenger tactic, or attach to them some negative, defamatory label or unsubstantiated opinion or accusation. But others, who really care about what you say, and about its accuracy or truth can check this video out. And judge if what you said is true (it isn't, but you use any disreputable, lying, exaggerating, insinuating, means in order to persuade) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC0V25HzhEM

Glenn Greenwald sanitizes the conservative movement's racist views on immigration; claims that a lot of the anger at immigrants is valid; shares that he's always been conservative; laments that the working class dream is dead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Glenn Greenwald sanitizes the conservative movement's racist views on immigration; claims that a lot of the anger at immigrants is valid; shares that he's always been conservative; laments that the working class dream is dead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now that your lie that Greenwald has "always sounded and acted like a Trumpist" has been debunked by the above video, it's that time for you to throw in some more vague and undefined accusations. It's what you do. It's not clear what you mean by "sanitizes". Nor which supposedly "racist" views. Many things have been called "racist" by the left when they actually aren't. "Racist" has become the chief empty but magic leftist word to attack targets on the right . And most of the anger re "immigration" is not directed at the immigrants, but to the politicians and agencies that support and abet what the ILLEGAL immigrants are doing. It is the illegal part, not the immigration part, that stirs up anger. And if he "shares" that he has always been a conservative, what does he mean by "conservative"? Does he want to conserve the founding poiitical system of government? I think so. Is he a Republican? I definitely don't think so. Does he want to conserve various iconic American values? I think so. Does he lean toward many social, political, and economic Progressive policies. I think so. And if he laments that the working class dream is dead, that doesn't sound much different than your lamentations about it.

I don't think he uses the kill the messenger tactic in order to persuade, like some on this forum resort do. Nor does he resort to constant insinuation and conjecture and outright repeated lies. He just plainly, with back-up and proof and documentation, tells it like it is.

Do I believe that everything he says or thinks or supports is, in my opinion, right and good? Absolutely not. Do I think he actually believes what he says and is not bull$hitting us to gain money, power, acclaim, or to win an argument? Yes, I think he is a straight shooter. Do I believe that he is lying for the supposedly greater good? No, I think he tells what he considers the truth, regardless of who or which "side" is hurt by it.

Greenwald looked at Rudy Giuliani's career trajectory from 2001-2021 and thought, 'I want what he's having.'
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Greenwald looked at Rudy Giuliani's career trajectory from 2001-2021 and thought, 'I want what he's having.'
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's the full context? What does he want that Giuliani is having? He certainly doesn't want the legal threats and notoriety that Giuliani is undergoing. He has eschewed money which helped rich folks from being sued--don't think he wants Giuliani's money

Among many other things, he said":

"I knew that I didn't want to be representing rich people. I wanted to be suing them"--in favor of those poorer folks in their suits against the rich.

He has said"

"We'd go in there to torment the conservatives," he recalled. "But the more I started doing it, the more I got drawn into the conversations. I stayed there for two years and made friends with all these people ... I argued with them, debated with them. I was totally openly gay, and they were very accepting. It was an eye-opening experience, and it taught me not to make assumptions about who people are."

"Truth matters. Noble lies are never justified no matter the cause, especially in journalism."

Greenwald has said that systemic racism has existed in this country since its founding. He has said the the overwhelming majority of protests (such as against police "unrestrained violence" against citizens, especially against blacks) are justified. He has said that Trump's threat to use military to restore order in the streets was a threat to democracy.

Check the above videos that I posted to note his concerns over Trump's threats to the country when he was elected.

You keep trying to discredit Greenwald by casting what you seem to think are aspersions, without actually discussing a video or article which could credit his truth seeking, especially if it might disturb or debunk some anti-Trump conspiracy.

You revert to the kill the messenger or guilt by association type propaganda when you can't make a cogent argument.