- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,535
- Reaction score
- 25,517
Mine was far more relevant, although neither is terribly relevant, to the assessment of honesty for this man's claim.LOL!
Mine was far more relevant, although neither is terribly relevant, to the assessment of honesty for this man's claim.LOL!
Mine was far more relevant, although neither is terribly relevant, to the assessment of honesty for this man's claim.
Was bernie ever about renegotiating NAFTA?
Again, it is not a matter of credulousness. I believe MSNBC capable of this. It is a matter of his credibility pertaining to comparative claims of journalism. He is shining Putin's ass while on Putin's payroll, and despite all of your Marxist-driven logic, where everything is a matter of money and interests, you overlook that much more direct and explicit correlation.Not even close. Your comment was about the credibility of the US media.
Phil Donahue, a household name, was fired by MSNBC for speaking out against the Iraq War even though he was hosting the most popular show on the network at the time. Internal memos show this to be true.
Your RT nobody who rage quit, not based on the way RT operates, but for something Russia was doing geopolitically is not even close to being as relevant.
This. Sounds like typical Russian lies. Nothing from RT can be believed, just like Faux News.I don't believe him.
It's not that I have any respect for MSNBC, or believe them incapable of it, but this is Russian propaganda. The entire point of his testimony is to discredit American media while esteeming RT. Hope he got paid well.
Again, it is not a matter of credulousness. I believe MSNBC capable of this. It is a matter of his credibility pertaining to comparative claims of journalism. He is shining Putin's ass while on Putin's payroll, and despite all of your Marxist-driven logic, where everything is a matter of money and interests, you overlook that much more direct and explicit correlation.
Her testimony is an example of direct state influence over any narratives pertaining to Russian geopolitical interests, and is happening today: in the post-Trump world of Russian media meddling and Russian-US relations. Donahue being fired prior to the Iraq war (when public support for the war was at an all-time high without MSNBC's help) is something you've cited before, and is a disgrace, but provides little insight into how they would have handled Bernie.
Except Ron Paul didn't have insane ideas that would never have a chance at being implemented.So he received the ”Ron Paul-treatment” more or less?
For those of us who really followed Bernie and his campaign we could see there was a very real bias against Bernie that just did not add up. Here is some pretty stark evidence MSNBC had it as policy against Bernie. Corporate medial makes a bigger negative effect on our elections than the Russians do.
What could possibly make Ed Shultz less credible than the nobody who rage quit RT for nothing to do with the network?
Not only does the Phil Donohue memo give more credence to shultz story, the Wikileaks about Clinton’s collusion with the media makes they plausible to the point of near certainty.
IrrelevantEd Shultz is a fucking moron.
Ron Paul’s FP hnnnnghExcept Ron Paul didn't have insane ideas that would never have a chance at being implemented.
Ron Paul was the hero everyone wanted but no one voted for, because they'd rather have a black neocon in office instead.
Because she quit in protest over the fact that RT was censoring any opinion from her that contradicted Russian interests in Crimea.What could possibly make Ed Shultz less credible than the nobody who rage quit RT for nothing to do with the network?
Not only does the Phil Donohue memo give more credence to shultz story, the Wikileaks about Clinton’s collusion with the media makes they plausible to the point of near certainty.
I agree with what you're saying but some people are single issue voters and if TPP was your single issue I can sort of see it. Sure Hillary ended up saying she was against it but it seemed insincere at the time.
Well yeah, WikiLeaks (sketchy as fuck source aside, the email content was never questioned) showed that the DNC gave out marching orders to mainstream media and they obliged.
Trump is flipping on the TPP and the Clinton delegates at the DNC supported it so I wouldn't be so sure about her not flipping on it. She did praise it herself before the populist surge caused her to flip flop.There was no way Clinton would be able to flip on the TPP, given the heat she took for opposing it. I think anyone who expected a reversal there just really doesn't understand politics at all. And opposing the TPP is one of the dumbest things to be a single-issue voter one can imagine.
As for the thread, it's reflective of a broader problem in the discourse, I think. People genuinely don't seem to be able to understand disagreement--about news judgment in this case, but it applies to anything. It's either you agree with me or you are corruptly pretending not to even though you secretly know I'm right. The far left is the worst on this, but it's a problem all over.
Trump is flipping on the TPP and the Clinton delegates at the DNC supported it so I wouldn't be so sure about her not flipping on it. She did praise it herself before the populist surge caused her to flip flop.
Not saying the TPP single issue folks were right, like I said I wouldn't vote for Trump and I was a Bernie voter.
If there was any media "conspiracy" against Bernie I'd imagine it was related to two factors: a) he was perceived as highly unlikely to win and therefore a waste of time and b) he wasn't perceived as good for ratings like Trump who was also perceived as highly unlikely to win.