There you go. No point in continuing. But more to the point, fuck that. If you want me to read something, write like a rational adult. I could go on.
Makes one wonder just how long media brainwashing has been going on. How far back do we have to go to find real facts about our history? Every country has its own take on world events. Which is true? Who do we believe? What do we believe?
All of this makes me sick and just want to buy some parcel of land away from it all and live off the grid without anything to do with society as a whole.
I gave it a full read, I like to understand things from different perspectives. @IulusGrun is correct in saying this is not a fringe opinion or perspective. The problem in pushing back against this sort of thinking is that you immediately become labeled a racist.
Or for example people throwing around the term “white privilege” if you push back against the use of that term as a pejorative, the immediate come back is “are you claiming it doesn’t exist” or you must be suffering from “white fragility”. Both of which are fallacious comments.
Like they say about all war, the victors write the history. We have always had peace-time partisan news sources in the US, though. The last time the Democrat press was as dishonest as it was powerful was probably during Reconstruction, when the Democrat South tried to reinstitute slavery.
Beginning in 1919 many in the liberal press, in the service of Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, tried their best to win Americans over to joining Europe in Wilson’s League of Nations. They succeeded in making the idea of a LoA wildly popular in the US. The US Senate refused to vote to join, however (and even refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles because Wilson had attached the LoA charter, the Covenant of the League, to it).
The press has always seen itself as entitled to earn a profit as a broker between the governed and their governors, though.
The line of the media being duped by a troll/bot from Russia/Brazil is garbage. Full videos, several from various angles were released on YouTube within moments of the story breaking.
Now, for sake of discussion, let’s say it was a nefarious Russian troll operating on direct orders from Putin. It’s not like the ‘fake’ video really faked anything. Rather, it simply edited a two-hour video down to a few seconds and slapped a nice headline on it. If this is really what it takes to send our media off debasing themselves for likes and comments and to send our populace out for blood then the republic is in poor shape.
No big loss, Buzzfeed, Yahoo News and Huffington Post are horrendous. Maybe they should just follow CNN and dedicate 95% of their news to Trump bashing and Soviet Russia fear mongering instead of just 80%
The media and the Democrats going nuts over Russia meddling, IMO is mostly manufactured. But thats what you get when you create a Russia story line and peddle it though the MSM.
I remember the exact time the Russia fear mongering started. It was after the near total defeat of ISIS…no more boogey man. It was during the televised debate between Trump and Clinton and Hillary started the first Russia fear mongering speech. At the time I thought it was odd as there had been no negative news on Russia for some years and I realized then It would be a repetitive theme the DNC would harp on…my instincts were more than correct…the old Soviet Russia Enemy to replace ISIS being on TV 24/7. I just never thought anyone would buy into it at the time. Goes to show you replay nonsense on media 10,000 times with no evidence people will fear anything.
tbh, I think @BiggusDickus is onto something when he brings up fair treatment.
As things stand there are still articles in all the major Democrat media sites accusing the Sandmann youth of smirking. When I watch the video I see a kid smiling politely, but I can also understand how a person who thinks being fair is unwarranted (because white, male, Christian, MAGA hat, and privileged) could convince her- or himself that Sandmann is smirking. If I didn’t care about making a fair judgment, or if I wanted to be unfair because I believe that Trump is unfair then I can understand calling it a smirk.
I am pretty sure managing editors have watched the full video by now. At least some of them must realize that it can be fairly characterized as a smile by now. That they won’t change their editorial position on this little thing - smile or smirk - tells me that they aren’t interested in being fair.
This isn’t really about fact checking, it’s about editorial slant. The media has an agenda here, and fact-checking isn’t going to change it.
There’s not even any such thing as real fact-checking anymore. All “fact-checking” now has a political agenda.
What if I told you the same Russia boogy man story started in 2007/2008. Same players, Oleg Deripaska, Paul Manafort, Putin only back then John McCain was the Russian puppet.
Who was pushing this story? Why, it was Glen Simpson of Fusion GPS that was hired by Hillary Clinton around March of 2016 to push the same story on to Trump. By the time of the televised debate, months of preparation had already been done.
It’s the same script. Those are all written by Glen Simpson and his wife in 2007 and 2008.
It just looks like a awkward smile from being uncomfortable to me.
That’s what I see, too. In fact, I think Sandmann actually did a great job of controlling his emotions, especially as an older man in a raucous atmosphere walked up, got right into his face, and began drumming loudly.
The most polite thing Sandmann could have done is probably to have backed up and walked away. Just cede the personal space to an elder. But like you said, it was an uncomfortable situation. Maybe Sandmann wasn’t perfectly polite, but he was never once impolite.
It seems to me that there’s little visible difference between an awkward smile and a smirk, and the interpretation of which it is is completely in the eye of the beholder.
It’s hard to get sleazier than this. And the idea that Russia is America’s biggest enemy is both laughable and dangerous.
It’s a total sleaze, I’ve been following this for a while, it seems the role of the FBI falls into the category of “useful idiots”. That’s not to say they weren’t complicit because they were, they grabbed the dossier with both hands and ran with it without checking it’s validity. Other players though like Brennan, I think has a lot of answering to do. Although he may be just too well connected, we will see.
Players like Brennan and Clapper should be sharing a cell with Hillary. The connections are indeed strong, but one can hope.
It doesn’t matter anyway. If he wasn’t smiling, they’d be bitching about his frown or blank stare.