Charlottesville protest

[Bliss]

Interesting opinion, links please.

1. Project Veritas released 119 hours of raw audio in a WikiLeaks style dump, with over 100 more hours still yet to be released. The audio was secretly recorded in 2009 by an anonymous source inside CNN's Atlanta headquarters who we are identifying as Miss X. The tapes contain soundbites from current and previous CNN employees Joe Sterling, Arthur Brice, and Nicky Robertson, as well as numerous others.

http://veritaslive.com/02-23-2017/p...-over-100-hours-of-audio-from-inside-cnn.html

***********************

2. In an interview on Monday, Ms. Brazile said she offered her resignation to CNN when emails surfaced earlier in October that showed her telling Ms. Palmieri: “From time to time I get the questions in advance.”
At the debate the next night, two women asked similar questions of Mrs. Clinton and her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont..

....Her sharing of questions with a candidate (Hillary) would seem to undercut the impartiality of the event and, as a CNN contributor, potentially reflect poorly on the network, which received big ratings, and thus profits, from primary debates and town halls...."
..
The episode has cast a harsh spotlight on the cable news practice of paying partisan political operatives to appear as on-air commentators.

***********

3. CNNPRODUCER CALLS ITS TRUMP/RUSSIA COVERAGE 'MOSTLY BULLS***'
6/27/2017 7:52 AM PDT
1773
This video clip is swirling around ... showing a CNN supervising producer saying the network's coverage of the Russia/Trump investigation is "mostly bulls***" but it's being covered to death for ratings.

John Bonifield, CNN's supervising producer of the network's health unit, is caught on undercover video saying the network is getting great ratings from trying to tie the Trump Administration to the Russian interference in the election.

Bonifield says CNN doesn't have the goods, but it's nonstop coverage is all about attracting viewers.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/27/cnn-trump-russia-undercover-video-producer/

 

[Bliss]

As conspiracy theories go, it doesn't even make sense. I guess those White supremacists and neo-nazis chanting 'Jews will not replace us' and 'blood and soil' were actors too??

These are the same people who believe it's a common tactic on the left to pay phony protestors to march at almost any event.

I'd be more inclined to believe the right was behind such a tactic because historically, since the 1960s, conservatives don't really march about issues.

I guess time might tell if this is the case. Getting at the truth has become increasingly diificult because as Americans with little power, of course we are the last and least to know.

The Southern Poverty Law Center reported that the Alt-Right organizer of Charlottesville, a newcomer on the Alt Right landscape out of nowhere prior to March, was (possibly) formerly an Occupy Wall St activist, having been recognized by a fellow Occupy acctivist, and an Obama supporter.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/jason-kessler

Excerpt: "...Kessler started his blog “Jason Kessler, American Author,” toward the end of 2015 and spent the majority of the next year dispensing mindset and lifestyle advice and promoting two books authored during a period of “worldwide travel.” The first is a book of poetry titled Midnight Road, and a second novel called Badland Blues about a “drunken dwarf,” who is “unlucky in love, looks or money.”

Rumors abound on white nationalist forums that Kessler’s ideological pedigree before 2016 was less than pure and seem to point to involvement in the Occupy movement and past support for President Obama.

At one recent speech in favor of Charlottesville’s status as a sanctuary city, Kessler live-streamed himself as an attendee questioned him and apologized for an undisclosed spat during Kessler’s apparent involvement with Occupy. Kessler appeared visibly perturbed by the woman’s presence and reminders of their past association..."

 

[Loki]

http://veritaslive.com/02-23-2017/p...-over-100-hours-of-audio-from-inside-cnn.html

***********************

2. In an interview on Monday, Ms. Brazile said she offered her resignation to CNN when emails surfaced earlier in October that showed her telling Ms. Palmieri: “From time to time I get the questions in advance.”
At the debate the next night, two women asked similar questions of Mrs. Clinton and her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont..

....Her sharing of questions with a candidate (Hillary) would seem to undercut the impartiality of the event and, as a CNN contributor, potentially reflect poorly on the network, which received big ratings, and thus profits, from primary debates and town halls...."
..
The episode has cast a harsh spotlight on the cable news practice of paying partisan political operatives to appear as on-air commentators.

***********

3. CNNPRODUCER CALLS ITS TRUMP/RUSSIA COVERAGE 'MOSTLY BULLS***'
6/27/2017 7:52 AM PDT
1773
This video clip is swirling around ... showing a CNN supervising producer saying the network's coverage of the Russia/Trump investigation is "mostly bulls***" but it's being covered to death for ratings.

John Bonifield, CNN's supervising producer of the network's health unit, is caught on undercover video saying the network is getting great ratings from trying to tie the Trump Administration to the Russian interference in the election.

Bonifield says CNN doesn't have the goods, but it's nonstop coverage is all about attracting viewers.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/06/27/cnn-trump-russia-undercover-video-producer/

James O'Keefe, does not have a very good reputation Bliss, http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/22/media/james-okeefe-cnn/index.html, he has been convicted of misdemeanor crimes and is currently under probation, has been forced to pay $100,000 in a lawsuit settlement, has been accused (not convicted) of sexual assault, and has very low credibility. All of that is not to say that it's impossible for him to produce real information, and break real news, but again, not the most credible source.

CNN parted ways with Brazile, most mainstream news outlets pay partisan talking heads for their contributions.

Lastly, of course CNN and other outlets are focusing on Russia, it *could* be a huge, criminal charges, impeachment, removal from office issue, thats going to get ratings for sure. We agree, that so far there has been no concrete proof presented, we must all wait for the Mueller investigation to finish, and then, hopefully we will have more information to review.

What I see in your links is what I have always said, there is always "spin" in the media, for both liberals and conservatives, which is why it is so important to be able to look at both sides, read between the lines, and discern the truth. Writing off one side or the other as "fake news" puts you in the pocket of, and vulnerable to only one side of the story.

 

[Bliss]

James O'Keefe, does not have a very good reputation Bliss, http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/22/media/james-okeefe-cnn/index.html, he has been convicted of misdemeanor crimes and is currently under probation, has been forced to pay $100,000 in a lawsuit settlement, has been accused (not convicted) of sexual assault, and has very low credibility. All of that is not to say that it's impossible for him to produce real information, and break real news, but again, not the most credible source.

CNN parted ways with Brazile, most mainstream news outlets pay partisan talking heads for their contributions.

Lastly, of course CNN and other outlets are focusing on Russia, it *could* be a huge, criminal charges, impeachment, removal from office issue, thats going to get ratings for sure. We agree, that so far there has been no concrete proof presented, we must all wait for the Mueller investigation to finish, and then, hopefully we will have more information to review.

What I see in your links is what I have always said, there is always "spin" in the media, for both liberals and conservatives, which is why it is so important to be able to look at both sides, read between the lines, and discern the truth. Writing off one side or the other as "fake news" puts you in the pocket of, and vulnerable to only one side of the story.

I definitely agree with your last paragraph. Each side has their own propaganda, agenda$ and $pin$ -- As I said to AB, it is very difficult to filter through to the truth of both sides. With examples such as a 'leaked' fabricated 'Dossier', to speculation of Seth's Richard's murder, it's created a clusterfuck of confusion.

1. Regarding Donna Brazile, she wasn't just a paid contributor, she provided questions to only one opponent. That's collusion. We all read the DNC's emails showing that they were intentionally sabotaging Bernie, so when Brazile fed questions to Hilary in her debate with Bernie, a specific agenda of whom they wanted to win the election, or at least the primary emerged.

Further fuel on the fire..

The DNC screened an op-ed written by CNN contributor Maria Cardona blasting Sanders fans for their behavior at the Nevada Democratic state party convention before it was published. Cardona sent a draft of the column to the DNC and wrote: "I want to make sure it is not too heavy-handed. Please let me know asap! Thanks!!"

Miranda approved but told Cardona the "Clinton campaign would probably ask you not to place it."

Another one, Politico, were forced to aoplogize for sending the DNC their articles for editing before publishing them to readers.

"Politico's Kenneth Vogel..., sent a copy of a story to the DNC before he sent it to his editors. Vogel sent the full story on April 30 under the subject line: "per agreement ... any thoughts appreciated."

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57951b65e4b02d5d5ed1f8e2

Furthermore, the WP and the DNC colluded to a joint fundraiser in exchange for positive press..

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) July 23, 2016

The subject line of the email is "WaPo Party." Anu Rangappa, a senior DNC adviser, wrote to DNC national fundraiser director Jordan Kaplan on September 22, 2015, "They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party."

"Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it," Kaplan wrote back.

Given the Post's tendency to endorse Democrats, holding a fundraiser with the DNC would not be a surprising development. It's also worth noting that a separate email Miranda wrote that The Washington Post's Greg Sargent might be willing to "play ball" in "writing up something positive."

Yet another, Loki..

The The Wall Street Journal also leaked negative information on Bernie Sanders colluding with the DNC. .
Miranda sent reporter Laura Meckler a letter from the Sanders campaign to the DNC whining about how "almost all of his nominees to the party’s platform and rules committees" were rejected and wrote to her, "You didn’t get this from me."

Miranda later "pressured Meckler to dismiss the Sanders campaign’s objections," ...
“The only reason the Sanders camp even sent that letter is that [Democratic Party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] was courteous enough to reach out to give both camps representation,” he wrote.
“But the appointments . . . are at the chair’s discretion.”



2. Per O'keeffe's reputation ...what you showed me tells me he was arrested for setting foot on Federal property under false pretenses -- that isn't a question of character to me. When I think about animal activists whom they now prosecute for lying on job applications to procur their undercover footage - yes he did lie to get into the office, but c'mon.

I also don't find the $100,000 fine equates to a questionable character. He exposed ACORN by posing as a Pimp who wanted to evade taxes for his prostitutes - he lost the suit because he illegally recorded one of the respondents whom gave him advice.

3. Finally with Russia, several Democrats have been forced to acknowledge that no proof of any collusion has neen presented to them to even consider impeachment, and even then you would need actual proof Trump directly colluded, which we know did not occur.
In addition, news(?) has just emerged that former NSA official, William Binney, has claimed in an interview that Russia did not hack the DNC servers.

Having responded with that, l think you might enjoy readng Forbes take on a Washington Post fake news story...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...f-the-power-grid/?c=0&s=trending#1fe280681365

 

[Loki]

I definitely agree with your last paragraph. Each side has their own propaganda, agenda$ and $pin$ -- As I said to AB, it is very difficult to filter through to the truth of both sides. With examples such as a 'leaked' fabricated 'Dossier', to speculation of Seth's Richard's murder, it's created a clusterfuck of confusion.


3. Finally with Russia, several Democrats have been forced to acknowledge that no proof of any collusion has neen presented to them to even consider impeachment, and even then you would need actual proof Trump directly colluded, which we know did not occur.
In addition, news(?) has just emerged that former NSA official, William Binney, has claimed in an interview that Russia did not hack the DNC servers.

Certainly agree with your first paragraph above, per the second paragraph, from a legal standpoint, it is not necessary for Trump to have directly colluded himself, if he knew of the collusion and did not report it, or tried to cover it up/downplay it, that would rise to the level of an impeachable offense, thats how they got Nixon, he did not do any of file stealing, did not authorize it, but did try to obstruct justice by covering it up.

 

[ColiBreh1]

"CNN is not an actual news organization". It's been busted many times as an extended arm of the DNC.

Interesting opinion, links please. In addition surely you would say the same of Fox news and the GOP, correct?

I'd say yes. CNN & MSNBC might as well be an extended arm of the DNC, FOX News is defintely the same for the GOP especially after hearing about Roger Ailes backstory.

 

[Bliss]

I'd say yes. CNN & MSNBC might as well be an extended arm of the DNC, FOX News is defintely the same for the GOP especially after hearing about Roger Ailes backstory.

Has Fox ever tried to hide it?
Though they have a couple of left wing hosts.
You can add NBC, CBS and NBC News to your list.

 

[bodhesatva]

Yeah conspiracy theories are really interesting. I'm sure we've all met a few people who are perfectly sensible people about basically everything, then after you've known them for a year for some reason the moon landing (or whatever) comes up, and they go full crackpot explaining how the moon landing was a massive hoax perpetrated by thousands of people conspiring to cover it up etc. etc.

To me it tells me that everyone is vulnerable to having their rational brains short circuited. It isn't like only "stupid" people fall prey to this stuff: it's like an infection.

 

[bodhesatva]

I'd say yes. CNN & MSNBC might as well be an extended arm of the DNC, FOX News is defintely the same for the GOP especially after hearing about Roger Ailes backstory.

I guess my problem with this is that CNN is significantly more conservative than MSNBC is. It's a very stark difference for those who have ever watched both.

So even if I'm willing to say that MSNBC is just an arm of the DNC (and I may not say that, but let's just say for the moment I agree), then how can you put CNN in the same breath? It's like saying Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are both arms of the Republican party. The Wall Street Journal is distinctly conservative, but much less so than Fox News, so lumping them together in one pile seems really weird.

 

[Bliss]

Certainly agree with your first paragraph above, per the second paragraph, from a legal standpoint, it is not necessary for Trump to have directly colluded himself, if he knew of the collusion and did not report it, or tried to cover it up/downplay it, that would rise to the level of an impeachable offense, thats how they got Nixon, he did not do any of file stealing, did not authorize it, but did try to obstruct justice by covering it up.

So then, what's your take on this? Fake? true?

POLITICO

• https://www.politicopro.com
• U.S. Edition
  • Europe Edition
  • POLITICO Florida
  • POLITICO New Jersey
  • POLITICO New York

Obama team was warned in 2014 about Russian interference
In 2014, the administration got a report of Russia’s intention to disrupt Western democracies, including the United States.

By ALI WATKINS

08/14/2017 05:04 AM EDT

... | Brendan Smilowski/Getty Images

• The Obama administration received multiple warnings from national security officials between 2014 and 2016 that the Kremlin was ramping up its intelligence operations and building disinformation networks it could use to disrupt the U.S. political system, according to more than half a dozen current and former officials.

As early as 2014, the administration received a report that quoted a well-connected Russian source as saying that the Kremlin was building a disinformation arm that could be used to interfere in Western democracies. The report, according to an official familiar with it, included a quote from the Russian source telling U.S. officials in Moscow, "You have no idea how extensive these networks are in Europe ... and in the U.S., Russia has penetrated media organizations, lobbying firms, political parties, governments and militaries in all of these places."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/14/obama-russia-election-interference-241547

 

[Loki]

So then, what's your take on this? Fake? true?

Interesting article, per the article it seems it was a matter or opinion as to whether the Obama administration, did not take the threats seriously at first, or reacted slower than they should have, or took it seriously and took active and decisive steps to combat the hacks working with NATO. In any of those scenarios it does not seem to fit the description of obstruction/cover up.

 

[bodhesatva]

Yes there is a big difference between "did not take Russian interference seriously enough," and "actively encouraged and assisted Russian interference."

The former is a serious mistake, to be sure. But the latter is a much more serious error.

 

[bodhesatva]

So off the top of my head, here are some News outlets that are definitely more liberal than CNN is, with links provided:

Huffington Post
Daily Kos
MSNBC
Salon
Mother Jones
Vox
New Yorker

My point is this: if CNN is basically a liberal propaganda network, then what do you call *these* outlets? All of them definitely qualify as more liberal than CNN, and many are significantly more liberal. Again, it would be like me calling The Wall Street Journal a conservative propaganda arm (Since their entire editorial board is distinctly conservative). But if WSJ is just conservative propaganda, then what do I call Fox? What do I call Breitbart? Both of those are way more conservative than WSJ is!

 

[Bliss]

Yeah conspiracy theories are really interesting. I'm sure we've all met a few people who are perfectly sensible people about basically everything, then after you've known them for a year for some reason the moon landing (or whatever) comes up, and they go full crackpot explaining how the moon landing was a massive hoax perpetrated by thousands of people conspiring to cover it up etc. etc.

To me it tells me that everyone is vulnerable to having their rational brains short circuited. It isn't like only "stupid" people fall prey to this stuff: it's like an infection.

I had read the term "conspiracy" was invented by the CIA in order to gaslight anyone questioning their operations.
I created the Conspiracy thread for the exact reason of what you wrote.
People call you crazy, but that's far from true.
Certainly we could throw up many that the Govt have orchestrated.

Here is one definition...(per Wiki)

According to the political scientist Michael Barkun, conspiracy theories rely on the view that the universe is governed by design, and embody three principles: nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected.

[1]:3–4 Another common feature is that conspiracy theories evolve to incorporate whatever evidence exists against them, so that they become, as Barkun writes, a closed system that is unfalsifiable, and therefore "a matter of faith rather than proof".[1]:7[4]:10

Think about how many Liberals believe the Russian Collusion Conspiracy, or those that believe the CIA infiltrated Ghettos with drugs, or that the NOI conspired with the CIA to execute Malcolm X, or ...
See where lm going with this?

 

[bodhesatva]

The weird thing about this conversation is that I don't even like CNN, but it's *not* because they're a liberal propaganda arm. They're just not very good journalists.

Just like People Magazine isn't particularly left wing (or right wing), they're just bad because it's all pop culture rumor crap, not because they're particularly biased. Same with CNN, just to a lesser degree.

 

[Bliss]

Rolling Stone Mag too.. ^^^^

So off the top of my head, here are some News outlets that are definitely more liberal than CNN is, with links provided:

Huffington Post
Daily Kos
MSNBC
Salon
Mother Jones
Vox
New Yorker

My point is this: if CNN is basically a liberal propaganda network, then what do you call *these* outlets? All of them definitely qualify as more liberal than CNN, and many are significantly more liberal. Again, it would be like me calling The Wall Street Journal a conservative propaganda arm (Since their entire editorial board is distinctly conservative). But if WSJ is just conservative propaganda, then what do I call Fox? What do I call Breitbart? Both of those are way more conservative than WSJ is!

Is it really about how far Left one is, or rather how powerful and connected they are.. to the DNC?
The richest man on the planet owns the liberal WP. (Bezos).
News as we knew it, no longer exists. You have to do your homework because if you sit back and get your news from one source, you're essentially a puppet.

 

[ColiBreh1]

I'd say yes. CNN & MSNBC might as well be an extended arm of the DNC, FOX News is defintely the same for the GOP especially after hearing about Roger Ailes backstory.

I guess my problem with this is that CNN is significantly more conservative than MSNBC is. It's a very stark difference for those who have ever watched both.

So even if I'm willing to say that MSNBC is just an arm of the DNC (and I may not say that, but let's just say for the moment I agree), then how can you put CNN in the same breath? It's like saying Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are both arms of the Republican party. The Wall Street Journal is distinctly conservative, but much less so than Fox News, so lumping them together in one pile seems really weird.

I've mentioned in the past that because the U.S. has a 2-party political system, both the Democratic Party & the Republican Party are Big Tent parties. You got groups with different ideologies & interests in both parties.

According to Wikipedia, the Democratic party consists of the following ideologies:

Majority:
Modern liberalism
Social liberalism
Factions:
Centrism
Conservatism
Left-wing populism
Progressivism
Social democracy


So CNN being less liberal than MSNBC doesn't really mean anything.







EDIT:

BTW, the Republican party consists of the following ideologies:

Majority:
Conservatism
Economic liberalism
Fiscal conservatism
Social conservatism
Federalism

Factions:
Fusionism
Libertarianism
Neoconservatism
Paleoconservatism
Right-wing populism

 

[bodhesatva]

I've mentioned in the past that because the U.S. has a 2-party political system, both the Democratic Party & the Republican Party are Big Tent parties. You got groups with different ideologies & interests in both parties.

According to Wikipedia, the Democratic party consists of the following ideologies:

Majority:
Modern liberalism
Social liberalism
Factions:
Centrism
Conservatism
Left-wing populism
Progressivism
Social democracy


So CNN being less liberal than MSNBC doesn't really mean anything.

If you define the Democratic Party this broadly, then almost every network could be described as a "wing of the Democratic party." Are you progressive? That fits the description above. What about socially liberal? Yep. What about conservative? Yep, that's in there, too! How about social democratic? Yep, you're in!

 

[bodhesatva]

I had read the term "conspiracy" was invented by the CIA in order to gaslight anyone questioning their operations.
I created the Conspiracy thread for the exact reason of what you wrote.
People call you crazy, but that's far from true.
Certainly we could throw up many that the Govt have orchestrated.

Here is one definition...(per Wiki)

According to the political scientist Michael Barkun, conspiracy theories rely on the view that the universe is governed by design, and embody three principles: nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected.

[1]:3–4 Another common feature is that conspiracy theories evolve to incorporate whatever evidence exists against them, so that they become, as Barkun writes, a closed system that is unfalsifiable, and therefore "a matter of faith rather than proof".[1]:7[4]:10

Think about how many Liberals believe the Russian Collusion Conspiracy, or those that believe the CIA infiltrated Ghettos with drugs, or that the NOI conspired with the CIA to execute Malcolm X, or ...
See where lm going with this?

The word "conspiracy" comes from Latin, so unless the CIA is 2000+ years old, I don't think they invented it.

I do think it's important to note one thing: I'd believe a *lot* more conspiracies if they had external validation, and didn't rely on vast cover ups to explain why they haven't come to light. For instance, if the head of the CIA, the head of the NSA, and the Director of National Intelligence all came out and said "Yes, the moon landing was a hoax," I'd be much more likely to believe in moon landing conspiracies.

 

[Bliss]

Interesting article, per the article it seems it was a matter or opinion as to whether the Obama administration, did not take the threats seriously at first, or reacted slower than they should have, or took it seriously and took active and decisive steps to combat the hacks working with NATO. In any of those scenarios it does not seem to fit the description of obstruction/cover up.

So what would be President Trump's cover up then? That he knew and did nothing? What could he do? Obama was President and knew and did nothing, anyway you slice it.

Additionally, I know this wasn't discussed when it happened bar my one post on it..

But let me ask you...if this had been Trump and not Obama saying the identical hot mic comment, would the liberal media and the Left not go insane?

Obama to Russia: ‘After My Election I Have More Flexibility’

MAR 26, 2012 | By DANIEL HALPER

President Obama got caught in private conversation with a hot mic today in Seoul, South Korea, telling outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Vladimir Putin should give him more "space" and that "[a]fter my election I have more flexibility."

President Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space."

President Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"

President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.