Politics Only 6 months into office

Yeah, that's for sure. Too bad you are busy trying to obfuscate it.



barfo

 

Whenever a thread pops up about Trump conservatives always say Obama or Hillry or Bill this and that. We aren't talkinhg about them. We are talking about Trump. And if conservatives are going to defend him, they can at least do it properly. But, they know the "attacks" on Trump are well founded and can only reply by attacking a past president or presidential candidate. They also say fake news and fake this and fake that. Well guess what Trump is a fake president.

#fakepresident

 

I don't think I've ever used the term "fake news."

I think they're outright liars.

One of the funniest things I've seen in recent days was immediately after Trump made his speech (it was decent standup comedy) in Phoenix. He correctly pointed out that he condemned the Nazis and other hate groups several times since events started in Charlottesville.

So CNN runs a big banner headline at the bottom of the screen: "Trump lies by omission" - the whole time THEY are lying by omissions, not at all conceding or mentioning that he outright and in the most serious terms, condemned Nazis and the KKK and other hate groups. In other words, lying by omission!

To boot, they deliberately turned his words (that he condemns) "violence on all sides" into "bigotry and hate on all sides" as if that were yet another constitutional crisis.

I guess they're saying what you want to hear. I care about the Truth.

 

I think a lot of people are repeating the Hillary Clinton campaign's narrative about why she lost. You included.

This is yesterday's news, I'm not dredging up the horrible woman for any other reason. It's Palmieri's actions that might be a clue as to how your echo chamber is leading you to bad conclusions.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinio...r-comey-mueller-hillary-clinton-20170829.html

Much to the embarrassment of Hillary Clinton, the released files showed that the DNC had secretly collaborated with her campaign to promote her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination over that of Bernie Sanders. Clearly, the Clinton campaign needed to lessen the political damage. Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton’s public relations chief, said in a Washington Post essay in March that she worked assiduously during the Democratic nominating convention to “get the press to focus on … the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary.”


Thus was laid the cornerstone of the Trump-Russia-collusion conspiracy theory.

 

For the dog's benefit, yes, the above is an opinion piece. That Palmieri wrote what she wrote is not opinion, it is fact.

If anyone wants to disprove that Palmieri publicly called for the press to focus on the campaign's Russia conspiracy theory, go for it.

 

Speaking of yesterday's news and lying by omission. Before reading the story, a little background info on the author is worthwhile.

Gil Troy is a well known presidential historian, professor of history at McGill University, author, contributor to left wing magazines, and TV guest/commentator on the left wing biased networks. He also is a visiting scholar at the socialist think tank, "Brookings Institute."

He wrote a QUALITY book about the Clinton years and the 1990s, too.

He is a Clinton supporter, democrat,

Time magazine is no right wing, Trump supporting news organization.

http://time.com/4919011/donald-trump-alt-left-antifa/?iid=sr-link1

Why the 'Alt-Left' Is a Problem

Clinton’s analysis proves why “alt-left” is a useful term. The “alt-left” is also a “paranoid fringe… steeped in… resentment,” and some of the resentment is “racial,” although moral, in that it is resisting racism. It too is “loosely organized, mostly online,” wallowing as the alt-right does in Internet-fueled hysteria and harshness. It too rejects “mainstream” ideology, in this case, liberalism. And it is broader than Antifa, the violent anti-Fascist fringe that combats neo-Nazis and the KKK.

The “alt-left” designation helps explain the Democrats’ emerging civil war, with extremists assailing centrist liberals, and turning the word “neoliberal” into one of their overused epithets. It exposes the postmodern fanatics: bullies who violate liberal principles by shutting up speakers they dislike; brats who riot in Berkeley, Portland, Oakland and elsewhere when they don’t get their way; hypocrites who denounce their opponents’ unreason and violence yet can’t see their own; and brutes who whip each other into vulgar frenzies on the Internet. The “alt-left” is populated by ideologues who reject the American value of compromise. They see a world of conspiracy theories, imagined enemies and exaggerated slights. Ironically, they echo their far right rivals by demonizing Wall Street, the Big Banks, the Mainstream Media — and, frequently, Jews or Zionists. Both far right and far left radicals represent a politics of backlash and lashing out, not consensus-building or reaching out.

Neither Left nor Right has a monopoly on virtue or violence. The “alt-left” continues the violence of the Weatherman and the Black Panthers in the 1970s, and the hooliganism of the “Battle of Seattle” WTO Protestors in 1999. And like the alt-right, leftwing radicals are finding ideological allies worldwide, particular among Jeremy Corbyn’s Labourites; these British leftists also prefer dictating the outcomes they seek instead of trusting democratic processes to work.

Yes, calling radicals the “alt-left” is mischievous, tarring those fanatics with their ideological rivals’ brush. But as Communists and Fascists showed, the political world is round. If you go too far left or right, you meet in the anti-democratic land of intolerance and violence.

 

It goes like this:

Palmeri's call for media action -> media propaganda campaign -> you echo the propaganda