Warren Zevon Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 1 hour ago, row_33 said: the Alt-Right is of zero real public political consequence in the US presently What is your opinion a politician currently in office retweeting alt right conspiracy theories? I would argue that has real political consequences.
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, garybusey said: What is your opinion a politician currently in office retweeting alt right conspiracy theories? I would argue that has real political consequences. We talking about Cynthia McKinney?
Warren Zevon Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: We talking about Cynthia McKinney? If she tweeted alt right conspiracies she would be a past example as she's not a current politician. But I'm not aware of her doing so. Please provide facts or evidence to back up your position.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 10 minutes ago, garybusey said: What is your opinion a politician currently in office retweeting alt right conspiracy theories? I would argue that has real political consequences. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Can you provide detail? I'm also confident that Tom asked a question, and did not articulate a position.
Warren Zevon Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Can you provide detail? I'm also confident that Tom asked a question, and did not articulate a position. Impossible to respond now that you've taken me to tasker. I bow to thee.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 1 minute ago, garybusey said: Impossible to respond now that you've taken me to tasker. I bow to thee. Stop being part of the problem with political discourse in this country. I asked you a question in good faith.
row_33 Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 22 minutes ago, DC Tom said: We talking about Cynthia McKinney? Only familiar with Catherine MacKinnon....
Deranged Rhino Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 2 hours ago, LA Grant said: I'm an adult in his 30s and I was in high school in 2001. How old were you? I understand the point about the Iraq War & I agree that many mainstream media journalists shoulder some of that blame for their role in the dissemination of bad information. What happened in the build up to the war wasn't a simple dissemination of bad information, it was a coordinated effort by the USIC and their media cut outs to lie to the American people. VERY big difference. It was a blatant propaganda effort headed by specific journalists (who still have jobs and positions of clout) and specific members of the USIC. The cross over of those reporters and the MSM cut outs leading the narrative relevant to this thread is near 100%. This isn't an accident. It's intentional. The very same people, not just the same organization and news outlets, that propagandized the people into not just war, but surrendering their fourth and fifth amendment rights in the name of security, are the same people who have been lying about Russian collusion since the start of this narrative. I point this out because here is where partisanship becomes apparent. We can quibble over the details of the collusion case, but one thing that cannot be denied is that the very same people who have proven themselves liars and perjurers are being touted as truth tellers now by the left because it's convenient to their politics, not because it's factual. This includes mainstays of the journalistic world. 2 hours ago, LA Grant said: But there is a tendency (not saying necessarily from you personally) to outright dismiss outlets that have earned our trust, including the NY Times, for their occasional failures, and suggest that because they can be fallible, then they are entirely unreliable, and therefore, we cannot trust the mainstream media at all, and can only trust the alternative press. I know you're not speaking to me directly, but I'm compelled to answer based on the conception of me you have. I've never been one to push only alternative sources. Quite the opposite. My intent in pointing this out isn't to say all NYT articles are bunk, but articles written by specific people - people we've proven throughout time to be cut outs of the USIC who care not about the truth but about whatever agenda they're pushing - are the ones we need to weed out. It's a more nuanced conversation that boils down to the specific messengers, not their organizations. I've pointed out multiple times how the alternative media suffers from the same partisanship and shortcomings of the MSM. We are, without question, in an information war right now. We're all on the front, we're all fighting the fight every day. Because of that, the disinformation is coming from all sides - the MSM and Alternative media. The only way to get through it as individuals is to hone our OWN discernment. That means reading everything you can on a subject and comparing and contrasting the differences to find the truth which lies in the middle most times. 2 hours ago, LA Grant said: To their credit, the NY Times at least owned up to their mistakes for not pressing further. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html The NYT took seven months to issue a correction on a basic fact on the Russian story. Namely, that all 17 USIC agencies were in lockstep agreement on the findings presented in the January 6, 2017 DNI report. SEVEN MONTHS to correct something that anyone could have seen was false had they bothered to read the first page of the source material. And they buried the retraction several pages deep - and some of their reporters STILL parrot that line without correcting it. This wasn't done because the NYT made a mistake. Or because they didn't read the DNI which clearly stated it was the product of THREE of the 17 agencies. No, they did it because they were acting as a mouthpiece for Brennan and Clapper. Certain papers have a long history of being cut outs for the USIC, but it's not the entire organization - it's specific reporters within the heritage papers (NYT, WaPo, LA Times). This isn't conspiracy, it's a provable truth. 2 hours ago, LA Grant said: If we saw this same level of ownership & responsibility from the alternative outlets, particularly the ones pushing partisan talking points (left & right), then perhaps an ethical comparison is justified. As it is, what I'm seeing is the exact opposite — it's doubling down on conspiracy theories like "Sandy Hook was staged," or "NFL players are protesting bc they want white genocide," or now with Q-anon.... and then when those things turn out to be entirely false, there's just this shrug like it never happened. There's no "alternative" media organizations - not in the same way there are MSM organizations that come with a legacy. There are individual press shops that should, and are, judged on their individual merit. None of them have the cover of a NYT or Washington Post where just saying "this is an article from the NYT" bestows some sense of truth to it automatically. If you did the same with an InfoWars piece, the opposite effect would result. People would assume it's bunk, whereas people would assume the NYT's is legit. The difference is, no one will (normally) take the time to fact check a NYT piece, but most will with an Intercept piece or InfoWars piece. Each piece of investigative work needs to be read and analyzed on it's own. This takes time. Time most Americans do not have or are unwilling to commit to putting in when it comes to getting their news. It's not an alt vs MSM thing. It's an individual responsibility thing. 2 hours ago, LA Grant said: In the interest of fair & balanced, Alex Jones did fess up to lying about Pizzagate at least... so I guess we could say then that InfoWars and the NYT are equally reputable? Idk, what do you think? https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/26/521545788/conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-apologizes-for-promoting-pizzagate I've never watched his show, or seen anything more than a few clips of Jones's show - and most of those were parodies - so I can't speak to this at all with any degree of experience. I can, and do, speak frequently about this: https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/5736 Which is a bill from 2012 which made it legal for the USIC to use the MSM to directly propagandize the American people. Because that's where we are, and where we have been for 6 years now. Living in a "free" society where the USIC can openly and blatantly lie to us through heritage media institutions without consequences.
PearlHowardman Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 23 hours ago, garybusey said: The amount of money raised does not matter. If Trump schemed with the Russians he's a compromised traitor. I'm not talking about the amount of money Trump raised. I'm talking about how little money Trump spent. 23 hours ago, Tiberius said: "Russia if you are listening, where are the emails?" You're getting warm. What was the political news event regarding Hillary Clinton that immediately preceded Trump making that ridiculous statement about Russian releasing e-mail?
Tiberius Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 54 minutes ago, PearlHowardman said: I'm not talking about the amount of money Trump raised. I'm talking about how little money Trump spent. You're getting warm. What was the political news event regarding Hillary Clinton that immediately preceded Trump making that ridiculous statement about Russian releasing e-mail? I can't recall, but was it Trump saying Putin was a good guy and the US has done bad things? No one at the time knew Trump officials were actually meeting with the Russians coordinating the campaign with Russian intelligence so it wasn't that. I don't think Trump began tweeting out Wikileaks links yet to the stolen emails, either.
row_33 Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 Mueller was wrongly told about the Russians that they killed 16 Czechoslovakians and were interior decorators. 1
PearlHowardman Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, Tiberius said: I can't recall, but was it Trump saying Putin was a good guy and the US has done bad things? No one at the time knew Trump officials were actually meeting with the Russians coordinating the campaign with Russian intelligence so it wasn't that. I don't think Trump began tweeting out Wikileaks links yet to the stolen emails, either. The political event regarding Hillary Clinton was the Wikileaks disclosure that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schulz was helping Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Why wouldn't Donald Trump take advantage of this disclosure? He was always calling Hillary Clinton "crooked" and saying that the election was rigged. Now he had Wikileaks proof. But for some reason Trump came out of nowhere with his ridiculous public statement asking Russia to release all the Hillary Clinton e-mail. Why would he do that? Why would he spend so little on his campaign, especially in the closing weeks?
Tiberius Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, PearlHowardman said: The political event regarding Hillary Clinton was the Wikileaks disclosure that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schulz was helping Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Why wouldn't Donald Trump take advantage of this disclosure? He was always calling Hillary Clinton "crooked" and saying that the election was rigged. Now he had Wikileaks proof. But for some reason Trump came out of nowhere with his ridiculous public statement asking Russia to release all the Hillary Clinton e-mail. Why would he do that? Why would he spend so little on his campaign, especially in the closing weeks? Of course he was going to hype the stolen emails, and to Trump it wasn't out of nowhere if he already knew about. That's the question Mueller is asking. Were the Russians and Trump together working on this and coordinating? That would be a criminal conspiracy.
/dev/null Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 8 minutes ago, row_33 said: Mueller was wrongly told about the Russians that they killed 16 Czechoslovakians and were interior decorators. Their house looked like sh*t 1
PearlHowardman Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Of course he was going to hype the stolen emails, and to Trump it wasn't out of nowhere if he already knew about. That's the question Mueller is asking. Were the Russians and Trump together working on this and coordinating? That would be a criminal conspiracy. You still don't get it. Debbie Wasserman-Schulz was forced to resign her position as DNC Chair as a result of this Wikileak disclosure. Trump had proof of "crooked" Hillary Clinton and her nomination over Bernie Sanders being rigged. But Trump immediately changed the subject. The news focus then became Trump making a buffoon out of himself when he asked Russia to release all the Hillary Clinton e-mail. Then the following week Trump engaged the father of a fallen US soldier who was Muslim, putting the Wasserman-Schulz resignation further into the news background. Doesn't Trump's behavior seem inexplicable?
/dev/null Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-02/contradictions-seth-rich-murder-continue-challenge-hacking-narrative
row_33 Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 21 minutes ago, PearlHowardman said: The political event regarding Hillary Clinton was the Wikileaks disclosure that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schulz was helping Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Why wouldn't Donald Trump take advantage of this disclosure? He was always calling Hillary Clinton "crooked" and saying that the election was rigged. Now he had Wikileaks proof. But for some reason Trump came out of nowhere with his ridiculous public statement asking Russia to release all the Hillary Clinton e-mail. Why would he do that? Why would he spend so little on his campaign, especially in the closing weeks? Comey knew how crooked she was and she thank goodness he hammered her just B4 the election.
PearlHowardman Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, row_33 said: Comey knew how crooked she was and she thank goodness he hammered her just B4 the election. It's almost as though Donald Trump was intentionally trying to lose the 2016 Presidential election. No?
row_33 Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 I’m sure he didn’t expect to win, but he likes a challenge and if someone will hold his beer he’ll get it done Imagine how much worse it would be if she won and the SJW crew got a million times more attention and power
PearlHowardman Posted March 3, 2018 Posted March 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, row_33 said: I’m sure he didn’t expect to win. Or maybe Trump never wanted to win the election. Perhaps he had an ulterior motive to run for President. That also involved collusion. But collusion with whom? DerangedRino - Do you know what I'm talking about?
Recommended Posts