RT should not be a news source you use for anything because it is not a news source! It was banned on the old forum for a very good reason- it's a state propaganda network peddling bullshit, you might as well be watching Infowars. If you are watching it and treating it as a legitimate organization with legitimate news, you are demonstrating that you lack the ability to actually discern real sources from propaganda, much like many people can't tell the difference between normal articles and sponsored content. And while watching RT, picking up arguments from there, then spreading them may not mean someone is intentionally support Russia, doing so makes them an unwitting tool for RT,, as they're con artists and you're the mark.
There IS context to everything, and that context is why RT is not a legitimate news network. Plenty of news networks have biases and blind spots. But places like Fox News and RT are fundamentally uninterested in objective truth, they are interested in shaping narrative to benefit their preferred political goals (the GOP and Putin, respectively.)
And I edited it in above, but your conspiracy theory that PBS is puppeteered by the Koch brothers is absolutely ridiculous and only serves as a wild whataboutism in order to justify that
And that's fine and all, but Chris Hedges is definitely reputable. So if he, or Greenwald, or anyone that is trustworthy says something on there, it doesn't mean you should just tune it out. Some journalists are credible and no matter where they give out info, that outlet doesn't invalidate anything they say.
And that's fine and all, but Chris Hedges is definitely reputable. So if he, or Greenwald, or anyone that is trustworthy says something on there, it doesn't mean you should just tune it out. Some journalists are credible and no matter where they give out info, that outlet doesn't invalidate anything they say.
Glenn Greenwald is not trustworthy or credible in 2019. He lucked into a scoop which caused everyone to overlook his history and his trajectory from Ron Paul fan to appearing as a guest on Fox News shows hosted by white supremacists is the result of that Ron Paul stan origin telling you exactly who he was.
I get everyone is feeling the Bern again but can we avoid crowning this dude Dem nominee 2020 please? We tried this overly optimistic shit 3 years ago and look. Bernie has the funds but he needs the TURNOUT to have any chance.
And that's fine and all, but Chris Hedges is definitely reputable. So if he, or Greenwald, or anyone that is trustworthy says something on there, it doesn't mean you should just tune it out. Some journalists are credible and no matter where they give out info, that outlet doesn't invalidate anything they say.
I'm curious though what have RT said in particular that substantively in disagreement with or is it immediately discredited because of Russian fundings?
No one who wasn't dropped on their head as a baby trusts anything Greenwald says. He is complete trash who pals around with white supremacists talking heads and happily tried to bring down Hillary Clinton in the *general* election.
I get everyone is feeling the Bern again but can we avoid crowning this dude Dem nominee 2020 please? We tried this overly optimistic shit 3 years ago and look. Bernie has the funds but he needs the TURNOUT to have any chance.
it totally worked for bernie 3 years ago though, he was a fringe candidate with no chance that somehow almost beat hillary, who was a politcial juggernaut. more of the same enthusiasm would work out tremendously well for him, especially since people are less keen to bet on "safe" choices after what happened.
He actively downplays Russian involvement in 2016 (Wikileaks, DNC hacks, all the Trump campaign stuff, etc.) in a way that's straight conspiracy theory/gaslighting. His dust up with AOC where he attempted to tell her that her reality was wrong and his was correct. He claims to be a "leftist", but any/all criticisms are aimed at the Dems. It's incredibly transparent, so much so that even TYT couldn't keep him on, and he's now written an article for The Federalist, an incredibly far-right publication. I group him in with people who claim to be on "the left" but who are really just toadies for fascists.
I concede the chair wasn't thrown, that I will agree with you above via Snopes. However, this is overlooking the entire scandal of the Bernie Bros to justify ignoring the whole thing completely to turn it in a myth - which wasn't entirely true. I don't see anything in your response rebutting those claims.
That Snopes article encapsulates the endemic issue with covering Bernie Sanders during the Primary, perpetuating the myth of Bernard Brothers. Central to why things got rowdy was (perhaps) legitimate claims of Voter Suppression, but that's a problem that plagued in many other primaries. The Rolling Stones wrote a piece with good details on what happened covering of what happened.
Should people not be angry and passionate when they believe (legitimately or not) that the leadership was being unfair to one candidate over the other? That some of 64 Bernie delegates were denied access because "they did not respond to the party's attempts to verify their names, birthdays and addresses."
It could be that these delegates actually got the details and registration wrong, but we know from Republicans that these tactics typically tend to favor the ones implementing them.
Now, the statement from the Nevada Democratic Leadership was this:
We write to alert you to what we perceive as the Sander [sic] Campaign's penchant for extra-parliamentary behavior — indeed, actual violence — in place of democratic conduct in a convention setting, and furthermore what we can only describe as their encouragement of, and complicity in, a very dangerous atmosphere that ended in chaos and physical threats to fellow Democrats.
and since you conceded the Snopes article, I'll quote a section from their sourcing.
Donovan went on, "So, was there violence? There was pushing, shoving, and screaming, a chair was brandished and a great deal of hostile and obscene language used. Several editors and reporters saw and heard the video live and later.People on the ground described it as violence. It doesn't seem a stretch to me."
Donovan and I disagree on this; "violence," which NPR more often uses to describe events in war zones, seems too strong a term to me based on the evidence I have seen so far. And the politics team's own decision to avoid the word "thrown" renders this online-only introduction to Keith's piece misleading, unless other eyewitnesses come forward to clarify the events[.]
What happened should not have been described as violence. The media was too ready to tarnish his supporters based on shoddy reporting which confirmed their biases. The Nevadan leadership chose to tell a story that just wasn't true.
There was no actual violence. Because if there were any victims, they would have 100% been covered by the media.
No one should be sending death threats, but there's a lot of justified anger from Bernard brothers.
Katie Halper has a good threaded tweet here and a great article which further goes into the Myth of Bernie Bros.
Sanders supporters faced & still ace misogynist, racist, homophobic abuse & harassment but the media ignores it. The only 2 documented cases of actual violence during the primary were male Clinton supporters on female Sanders supporters.1 was a young WOC @disruptionary...
Moumita Ahmed was literally hit by an older straight white man with his cane. This was captured. On video. The @TheIndypendent was 1 of the only media outlets to report on it. Can you imagine if the support had been reversed? If a straight while male Sanders fan had struck a...
He actively downplays Russian involvement in 2016 (Wikileaks, DNC hacks, all the Trump campaign stuff, etc.) in a way that's straight conspiracy theory/gaslighting. His dust up with AOC where he attempted to tell her that her reality was wrong and his was correct. He claims to be a "leftist", but any/all criticisms are aimed at the Dems. It's incredibly transparent, so much so that even TYT couldn't keep him on, and he's now written an article for The Federalist, an incredibly far-right publication. I group him in with people who claim to be on "the left" but who are really just toadies for fascists.
Well that's fair. I think he's got a point in the AOC tweet tho, a lot of the responses to Omar were disingenuous. I think he's just a grifter, much like Jimmy Dore. I was just confused why you group him with Russia Today employees as if he's part of some grand conspiracy.
it totally worked for bernie 3 years ago though, he was a fringe candidate with no chance that somehow almost beat hillary, who was a politcial juggernaut. more of the same enthusiasm would work out tremendously well for him, especially since people are less keen to bet on "safe" choices after what happened.
I'm not criticizing that enthusiasm, I'm just warning against setting up expectations too early. I was big on Bernie in 2016 too and even then the expectation was that he had picked up so much momentum that he would eclipse Hillary for the nom. He went from being a dark horse candidate to the assumed frontrunner by many.
