Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk. Nobody wins. I’m a skunk. I’m saving him like Putin is saving the people of Ukraine from the neo nazis. Seattle could drop his playing chess with a pigeon analogy here.
It’s just an example of our polarization. He was a moderate. I’m a moderate. The poles have moved so far it’s hurting us. I’m OK there is a GOP speaker who’s against the school voucher movement and won’t let it come to a vote. Otherwise conservative GOP state people are having to fight off their own party over some far right stuff. I’m sure it is happening where the far left owns the jurisdiction but I don’t know those issues.
Bubba I don't think Kleptocracy means what you think it means. Nothing in your response came close., no specifics, no facts But I guess you get a "participation" star.
The corporate media is the enemy of the American people. Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube are included.
Coach, The Trump-Russia story had political hands all over it too, and you largely bought into it and were bothered by it. Of course, we've also discovered that it involved corrupt people within the FBI, which is far more worrisome. I claim no superiority over you on this. I mostly bought it to at the time, but I'm not going to shrug off something that's real when I took seriously something that was mostly fake and was driven at least in part by partisan actors within the government abusing their power through a secret court system. But the real controversy isn't the Hunter Biden story, as disturbing as that is. The real controversy is that our media took a half-assed opinion statement from former, unnamed intelligence officers, pretended it was established fact (when is was wrong and was never even supported by evidence) and used that as a justification to suppress a basically true story. In addition to learning that the president's son and quite possibly the president of himself are slimy, you learned that you pretty much don't have a free press. They blew up and made a major issue of something that was fake and then used massive censorship to kill something that was basically real. With our media, you can't know what's true and what's false. That's the real issue, and if you can't see that or it doesn't bother you, that's pretty astounding.
Had the press simply been incurious about the Biden laptop story, I could be slightly forgiving. But the social media side of modern day press took an active role in spiking it and cancelling any voices who dared speak of it, while the broadcast side took an active role in ignoring it and denying it, reporting that the social media's spiking of the story was proof of its falsehood. When media spends most of its time reporting on the actions of other media outlets instead of investigating facts for themselves and reporting what is found, there is a massive, massive problem. EDIT to note that all of this was done specifically to damage one political candidate while providing comfort and cover to another.
The Biden laptop story was censored to swing an election, true. The story itself should be instructive for current events.
Biggest media scandal that I can remember in my lifetime. Nearly the entire MSM and social media companies colluded to discredit and censor a TRUE story about corruption involving the leading POTUS candidate. I cannot remember another scandal involving the American media even close to this.
Learning how to read between the lines for bias is really pretty easy. You assume everybody has them and then try to discern what they are not telling you openly. It was patently obvious from the getgo that Hunter was the not Beau in that family. And that his dad was not going to let anything bad happen to his sole surviving son even if he is the blackest of sheep. The media was freaked about the possibility that Trump might get re elected. So they looked the other way. Had the story been covered adequately there is no way Biden wins so they looked the other way. It might behoove them now to cover the story as a way to ease Joe into retirement so they can get a better candidate to fend off the Beast. Too bad there aren’t any the most influential wing of the Dem party is black women and they are going to demand a black woman president. Which one is a problem not being discussed in the media
Would you consider that a media centric scandal? I confess it was before my time so not as familiar with all the details.
I've often wondered about Gulf of Tonkin and the media buying it on face value as fact. Were they naive or was it because LBJ, the successor to Kennedy was in office? The media was aware of Kennedy's dalliances and looked the other way. I remember the growing media hostility in 1968 after the Tet Offensive which only gained strength with Walter Cronkite's speech, more casualties in Vietnam and Watergate. Now, from my perspective, it looks like D = Good, R = Bad. The circumstances don't matter. Win at all costs. Whatever the cost to the economy, taxpayer, American prestige around the globe (yes, that matters), strength of and faith in the dollar or anything else, just win the White House and Congress. Republicans are not all saints and Democrats are not all demons. All I want is a media that I can trust. We don't have that anymore and have not had that in a long time.
All I want is a media that will make every single federal politician quake with fear of being caught doing something corrupt and/or stupid.
The American people are on the same side as the media - just only the media that parrots only what that particular person has already decided is true. This is conflating two different events. The first one was a real attack by the NVA. The second one never happened - it was a jumpy crew claiming to be under attack and then firing at noises and shadows. I keep hearing people use the second one to say "The Gulf of Tonkin attack didn't happen". The second one didn't happen, it's true (though this was nervousness after the first one causing false reports, not orders from on high - it's fairly common; e.g. the day after Pearl Harbor some AA gunners freaked out and shot down a few of our own planes), but the first one did. And using the second event as evidence that there was no attack makes no sense because the second event wouldn't have happened at all if not for the first one causing the crew to be on edge.
Everyone curates their media to a certain degree, so that's true. But the American people are not on the side of the media. The corporate media are a part of the Deep State. There is a revolving door relationship between the CIA/NSA and TV media. They are often interviewed on the channels themselves or are the unnamed sources being used. If you want to know what the regime wants you to think turn onto TV news.
It's hard to find a good comparison, because we've usually condemned blatant de facto cheaters. The closest I could think of is the baseball players who took steroids (Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, etc.). MLB let that slide for awhile, but the rest of the media and popular culture didn't celebrate them as heroes for doing it. Furthermore, the rules were set up to make steroids harder to exploit rather than set up to encourage the bad conduct. There really is no clear comparison. We've never reached these levels of idiocy before.
