|
Quote:
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-...-full-results/ |
🇷🇺 You should soon qualify for the Order of Honor for Excellence in spinning the Puppets speech
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
We are a representative democracy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
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 |
|
Quote:
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....
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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...ovid-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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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 |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com