USPOL THUNDERDOME: "Democrats Bad" Containment Zone

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL THUNDERDOME: "Democrats Bad" Containment Zone

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

I don�t think you could reasonably argue that there�s a significant moral difference between going on the BBC under the May government and RT under Putin. Both are right wing authoritarian governments and both press outlets are mouthpieces in some capacity for said governments.

(I would think this implies that both are bad, not that both are good, however)

I�d argue there�s a difference between say, Corbyn going on the BBC as an elected British official versus going onto RT, however, and that it would be different calculus from a left-wing journalist or activist.

# ? Sep 25, 2018 17:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 11:20

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

I never said all media was equal, I asked you to defend your position that going on any media program is not just an endorsement of everything their editors believe but also incontrovertible proof that the person actually shares all the same opinions as the editors such as "the GRU is good", and so far you've been unable to do that.

E:
Well you've been unable to do that except by question-begging "going on RT is loving the GRU by definition" and special pleading "unless someone I don't feel comfortable accusing of being a GRU shill does it"

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Sep 25, 2018

# ? Sep 25, 2018 17:58

hobotrashcanfires: Jul 24, 2013

VitalSigns posted:

I really don't see how you can look at the Iraq War coverage in Western media and not conclude that it's government propaganda.

The administration called them up, told them what to print, and then went on TV and said "hey you don't have to take our word for it, look it's in the New York Times"

Then, many years later, the same NYT which unashamedly helped drive public opinion toward war managed to publish a worthwhile piece which rapidly got memory-holed:

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html

Who can forget the innumerable "military experts", often being paid by the networks to be the Bush Administration's mouthpiece, strewn across every major media outlet, not just Fox, and not just cable news.

David Barstow posted:

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guant�namo Bay. The detention center had just been branded �the gulag of our times� by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

The administration�s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guant�namo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as �military analysts� whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

...

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse � an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

...

Some network officials, meanwhile, acknowledged only a limited understanding of their analysts� interactions with the administration. They said that while they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, they did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees regarding outside financial interests. The onus is on their analysts to disclose conflicts, they said. And whatever the contributions of military analysts, they also noted the many network journalists who have covered the war for years in all its complexity.

Five years into the Iraq war, most details of the architecture and execution of the Pentagon�s campaign have never been disclosed. But The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guant�namo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation.

...

Over time, the Pentagon recruited more than 75 retired officers, although some participated only briefly or sporadically. The largest contingent was affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN, the other networks with 24-hour cable outlets. But analysts from CBS and ABC were included, too. Some recruits, though not on any network payroll, were influential in other ways � either because they were sought out by radio hosts, or because they often published op-ed articles or were quoted in magazines, Web sites and newspapers. At least nine of them have written op-ed articles for The Times.

Of course they all largely brushed off accountability for it, if they addressed it at all. It all became just one more scandal the Obama administration covered for.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/us/pentagon-finds-no-fault-in-its-ties-to-tv-analysts.html

David Barstow - Relegated to Page 20, fuckin' lol posted:

The inquiry found that from 2002 to 2008, Mr. Rumsfeld�s Pentagon organized 147 events for 74 military analysts. These included 22 meetings at the Pentagon, 114 conference calls with generals and senior Pentagon officials and 11 Pentagon-sponsored trips to Iraq and Guant�namo Bay, Cuba. Twenty of the events, according to a 35-page report of the inquiry�s findings, involved Mr. Rumsfeld or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or both.

One retired officer, the report said, recalled Mr. Rumsfeld telling him: �You guys influence a wide range of people. We�d like to be sure you have the facts.�

The inspector general�s investigation grappled with the question of whether the outreach constituted an earnest effort to inform the public or an improper campaign of news media manipulation.

The inquiry confirmed that Mr. Rumsfeld�s staff frequently provided military analysts with talking points before their network appearances. In some cases, the report said, military analysts �requested talking points on specific topics or issues.� One military analyst described the talking points as �bullet points given for a political purpose.� Another military analyst, the report said, told investigators that the outreach program�s intent �was to move everyone�s mouth on TV as a sock puppet.�

...

The report found that at least 43 of the military analysts were affiliated with defense contractors. The inspector general�s office said it asked 35 of these analysts whether their participation in the program benefited their business interests. Almost all said no. Based on these answers, the report said, investigators were unable to identify any analysts who �profited financially� from their participation in the program.

The report, however, said that these analysts may have gained �many other tangible and intangible benefits� from their special access. (Eight analysts said they believed their participation gave them better access to top Defense Department officials, for example.) The report said that a lack of clear �internal operating procedures� may have contributed to �the perception� that participation by military analysts with ties to defense contractors �provided a financial benefit.�

...

A Pentagon public relations program that sought to transform high-profile military analysts into �surrogates� and �message force multipliers� for the Bush administration complied with Defense Department regulations and directives, the Pentagon�s inspector general has concluded after a two-year investigation.

But I'm inconsolably enraged about Glenn Greenwald going on Fox or RT a few times, because none of the good(???) networks will have him.

hobotrashcanfires fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Sep 25, 2018

# ? Sep 25, 2018 18:10

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

Fox is absolutely worse than RT. RT is fairly conventional in the way it presents propaganda, Fox News has been presenting unabashed white nationalism for years now.

# ? Sep 25, 2018 18:18

Iron Twinkie: Apr 20, 2001; BOOP

Harik posted:

Depends on which media you're talking about. Not everybody was pro-war going in but lovely rags like the NYT absolutely were.

Which major US outlet(s) do you not consider pro war?

# ? Sep 25, 2018 18:23

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

Iron Twinkie posted:

Which major US outlet(s) do you not consider pro war?

The Onion.

# ? Sep 25, 2018 18:54

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

Harik posted:

That really is a fundamental divide, yes.

Axiom: there's a difference between:
* privately owned free press that's got a lovely history of wanting access to the government while also having owners that stand to profit selling lots of bombs to drop on civilians.
* state-owned media that explicitly exists to serve the interests of the state.
additionally:
* state-funded media that theoretically has freedom but knows where their funding comes from. (BBC, NPR, etc).

I fundamentally disagree that "Oh, all media is equal" which is the core of what Vitalsigns keeps saying.

Depends on which media you're talking about. Not everybody was pro-war going in but lovely rags like the NYT absolutely were.

Of course there is a structural difference between three differently-structured media apparatus. The question is whether these differently-structured apparatus create meaningful distinctions in output. I don't believe they do. Further, you are completely underestimating the systemic factors at play in determining what stories get covered by capitalist media. A fairer description would be: * privately controlled media that must, as an systemic necessity, retain access to government sources and maintain credibility with its advertisers. An even fairer description could probably be shortened to: * privately-controlled media that explicitly exists to serve the interests of capital.

Edit: Read Manufacturing Consent. The book is slightly dated at this point as evinced by Trump's election, but its model of how media functions in a capitalist system is still convincing.

Edit2: or at least watch the movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE

The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Sep 25, 2018

# ? Sep 25, 2018 19:32

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Yeah, the key point of disagreement here isn't that differences exist between RT and a lot of Western media; it's that those differences are substantial enough to matter, particularly in the specific context that causes people to ridicule RT (to the extent that merely appearing on it is sufficient to completely discredit an individual).

# ? Sep 25, 2018 20:58

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

I wouldn't care if Glenn did a guest column on the Daily Stormer if he said true poo poo in it. This whole argument just boils down to people trying to ignore facts because they're on the wrong TV channel.

And honestly who even owns a TV in 2018 when all the best definitely true and good information is on Twitch streams.

Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Sep 25, 2018

# ? Sep 25, 2018 21:13

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

I mean ridicule RT all you want, but the charge that just because somebody appeared on it means they love the Russian secret police is weak as hell

# ? Sep 25, 2018 21:23

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

walking up to an RT reporter and demanding shrilly that my face be blurred out lest i be mistaken for a russia lover

# ? Sep 25, 2018 22:25

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

RT unironically owns because their entire propaganda strategy atm is to just give a platform to all the people MSNBC fired for saying the Iraq war was bad and let them say true poo poo about the US.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 00:53

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

readingatwork posted:

RT unironically owns because their entire propaganda strategy atm is to just give a platform to all the people MSNBC fired for saying the Iraq war was bad and let them say true poo poo about the US.

yea RT's American stuff is 90% people blackballed here for saying 'maybe cops aren't heroes actually' or 'the war is bad' in 2003 so making it the new red scare target #1 super won't wind up with white rich libs telling people not to listen to minority voices because they're too radical and stupid to know they're mere pawns...

Oh nooooo!

# ? Sep 26, 2018 02:07

Skex: Feb 22, 2012; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

My problem with Greenwald is that in his zeal to attack the American intelligence community and military industrial complex he has chosen to align himself with the very architects of the very policies he purports to oppose.

This is the very definition of an useful idiot.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 02:13

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Skex posted:

My problem with Greenwald is that in his zeal to attack the American intelligence community and military industrial complex he has chosen to align himself with the very architects of the very policies he purports to oppose.

This is the very definition of an useful idiot.

Only if you use an extremely loose definition of "align." Greenwald is not pro-Trump or Republican.

(Plus there's the whole point I've repeated about how even if you emphasize his flaws, he still comes out looking better than most liberal-aligned political/media figures, who for some strange reason don't receive nearly the same level of dismissive and hostile language. A good example of this might be Obama; Obama is undeniably worse overall in terms of both ideology and the results of his actions than Glenn Greenwald, but he would never receive the same sort of language aimed at him by most of these people.)

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Sep 26, 2018

# ? Sep 26, 2018 02:15

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

Skex posted:

My problem with Greenwald is that in his zeal to attack the American intelligence community and military industrial complex he has chosen to align himself with the very architects of the very policies he purports to oppose.

This is the very definition of an useful idiot.

Which architects are these now? I don't see him sucking up to the neocon crowd unless I missed something.

I do see more mainstream liberals doing this quite a lot though.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 02:20

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

Skex posted:

My problem with Greenwald is that in his zeal to attack the American intelligence community and military industrial complex he has chosen to align himself with the very architects of the very policies he purports to oppose.

This is the very definition of an useful idiot.

Just like how opponents of Japanese internment chose to align themselves with archconservatives at home and Nazis abroad.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 02:59

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Skex posted:

My problem with Greenwald is that in his zeal to attack the American intelligence community and military industrial complex he has chosen to align himself with the very architects of the very policies he purports to oppose.

This is the very definition of an useful idiot.

hey skex can you remind us what your stance on people splitting the vote is again

# ? Sep 26, 2018 03:16

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

Skex posted:

My problem with Greenwald is that in his zeal to attack the American intelligence community and military industrial complex he has chosen to align himself with the very architects of the very policies he purports to oppose.

This is the very definition of an useful idiot.

to put it simply I'd give more of a poo poo if the libs weren't constantly rehabbing bush/reagan sub-humans and never-trump republicans just to score points. I genuinely would rather a smug dick with right views kinda sorta give a bit of clout to Putin's regime (not much but whatever we're pretending Greenwald is some earth shaking titan that suddenly empowers Putin when he says 'the FBI is bad') than Ellen dancing with Bush and people pretending James Comey is a good man because he got fired by our most overtly retarded president.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 04:53

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

No, but you see, if you point out that Bush was a murderous ghoul that led to millions of deaths and the institution of a global torture regime, you are directly supporting all former Bush staffers currently working for Trump. The only effective way to protest murderous wars and policies is to go "aww" when Bush and Michelle Obama share a piece of candy.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 05:13

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Actually the real danger is pointing out the deadly results of their policies and that politics is a struggle with real life and death results and not a club where you hang out with your drinking buddies.

https://twitter.com/BrendanNyhan/status/1044744163097497601?s=19

These decorum obsessed idiots with large exposure are doing way more damage than any sort of legitimacy a bunch of people exiled from our cable news and big name papers are doing by going on RT. That's not taking into account Democrats are allowed to go on Fox News all the time and their hosts are spouting straight white nationalism and hate for rape victims daily.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 12:48

Nothus: Feb 22, 2001; Buglord

I think Greenwald's work is important, and I don't give a poo poo what network he uses to get his message out. But it's hard to know what to make of his association with Pierre Omidyar and his outfit's shameful bungling of Reality Winner. Land of contrasts and all that.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 13:16

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Nothus posted:

I think Greenwald's work is important, and I don't give a poo poo what network he uses to get his message out. But it's hard to know what to make of his association with Pierre Omidyar and his outfit's shameful bungling of Reality Winner. Land of contrasts and all that.

Greenwald was completely unrelated to the Reality Winner thing (Greenwald is a columnist and holds a ceremonial title at the intercept). In addition, while the whole showing the printing marks thing was an obvious gently caress up, it is important to understand that the main reason Winner was caught wasn't that. That was a minor thing used to provide confirmation. Winner emailed the intercept from her work email, and then later from her work computer. The printing marks thing may have given them additional evidence, but she was pretty much done the second she did that. There's no publication that can ensure your anonymity if you keep emailing them from your work email and work computer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.86e9c4413138

# ? Sep 26, 2018 15:25

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

I had to look up who Pierre Omidyar is. What is Greenwald�s association with him? He seems like a run of the mill techbro but I�m just looking at Wikipedia.

Edit: oh I see, he started a media company. Is that a bad thing? Is it a bad media outlet?

Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Sep 26, 2018

# ? Sep 26, 2018 15:33

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

https://twitter.com/joelcifer/status/1044949943637725189?s=21

quote:

�I mean, we do get along,� Manchin said of the president, almost as much to himself as to me. �We get along. And there's things he's done that I like and support, okay? And there's things I would love to help him with and make him better.� Soon Manchin stopped speaking to me�or himself�and began addressing Trump. � �Mr. President, these Democrats are not all that bad�just because we have a D by our name,� � Manchin said. � �It seems like you're the president of the Republicans. I want you to be the president of all of us. You're my president.� �

If that sounds to you like an unusual sentiment to hear from a Democrat these days, it's worth noting that there aren't many Democrats quite like the senator from West Virginia. After Trump's shocking victory in 2016, Manchin was perhaps the only member of his party willing to express optimism about what lay ahead. �I don't think Donald Trump is far to the right,� Manchin told me a few days before Trump's inauguration. �I think he's pretty much centrist�a moderate, centrist conservative Democrat.� Manchin marveled about how willing Trump seemed to be to listen to others (in contrast to Barack Obama, who, Manchin told me, �didn't seem like he had any empathy for anyone left behind because of a policy and his desire for social changes he wanted�). �We couldn't get through before,� Manchin said. �You can get through to this guy.�

Manchin is a rube:

quote:

Eighteen months later, despite all the evidence to the contrary, he stubbornly stands by his assessment. �Every time I've hung around the president, he is always much more comfortable trying to work something in a bipartisan way,� Manchin told me this past summer. �He tries to do the reasonable thing, the responsible thing.� As for why that attitude hasn't been reflected in the White House's legislative priorities or his public rhetoric, Manchin could only speculate and make excuses. �I think the political people around him or whatever have gotten him to believe we don't need to be bipartisan,� he offered.

No hugs. Only man bumps:

quote:

About the only time Manchin expressed any annoyance over Trump was when I asked about the president mocking Manchin for hugging him so much. �He's grabbed me more than I've grabbed him, okay?� Manchin bristled. �Anyway, there's no hugs. You know how guys do the man bump.�

Riding lawnmowers without a care in the world:

quote:

A few weeks before that stormy afternoon in Charleston, Manchin was in Washington, hustling across the grounds of the Capitol when he stopped abruptly. With his broad shoulders and labored gait, the 71-year-old Manchin resembles a long-retired professional athlete, which he might have been were it not for the knee injury that ended his promising football career as a quarterback at West Virginia University. As we paused suddenly near Constitution Avenue, I worried that maybe his knee was acting up or he'd succumbed to the heat. But no, something had caught the senator's eye. Gazing out into the middle distance, he began to study a Capitol grounds landscaping crew toiling in the afternoon sun, blithely tending to the grass.

�Some days, I just watch,� Manchin told me in a near whisper. �People riding a lawn mower�I envy 'em so much.� There almost seemed to be a catch in his throat. He appeared thrilled by their industriousness, their unimpeded productivity. �Not a fuckin' worry in the world,� he continued. �Put the earphones on and let 'er rip.�

A loving houseboat:

quote:

When the Senate is in session, Manchin lives on a houseboat that he keeps anchored about eight miles south of the Capitol. He's christened his floating home Almost Heaven�which is how John Denver describes West Virginia in �Country Roads.� He daydreams about the possibilities that living on a boat in Washington present. �I can untie the ropes and away I go,� Manchin says. �I can go right to the front door of where I live in West Virginia.� He concedes that such a trip would be tricky�and it might take him two to three weeks to reach his home on the Kanawha River in Charleston. But what's important, he says, is that he could do it.

Senator Joe Manchin everyone:

quote:

Even when Manchin's in the right, his lack of understanding can hobble him. One day in May, he was headed to a Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing where Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin would be testifying. On matters of trade, Manchin favors protectionist policies to place tariffs on Chinese goods. He's been frustrated with Mnuchin��a balls-to-the-wall free trader,� as Manchin calls him�who persuaded Trump to adopt a gentler tack with China.

Barging into the anteroom where Mnuchin was huddling with his advisers before testifying, Manchin walked up to the secretary. Then, leaning toward Mnuchin like Lyndon Johnson threatening a recalcitrant senator, Manchin offered a blunt warning: �I'm gonna hit you on the China stuff today.�

�What are you going to hit on?� a clearly startled Mnuchin replied.

�We're concerned about the changes,� Manchin told him.

�What are you concerned about?� Mnuchin said.

�We're concerned about the technology,� Manchin said, referring to a reported Mnuchin-supported move to lift sanctions on a Chinese telecom firm called ZTE.

�What-what-what, specifically?� Mnuchin stammered.

�Well, from the things where the president was going, doubling down on the tariffs,� Manchin said, betraying a wobbly handle on his argument.

Sensing his interlocutor was perhaps no expert on the matter, Mnuchin regained his composure. �Did you understand what the deal is before you hit me?� he shot back.

�No, no, no. We're not going to hit you,� Manchin begged off. �We're going to ask you to explain the difference of where the president's coming from and your role in it.�

�I don't understand,� said Mnuchin, now on the offensive. �What's your point?�

Manchin fumbled around, asking about tariff numbers and ZTE. Mnuchin began lecturing him about trade policy toward China. Before long, he was the one questioning Manchin. �Have you been briefed on the security issues on ZTE?� Manchin said he had. �How recently?� Mnuchin practically taunted him. He assured Manchin that there was nothing to worry about from a national-security perspective.

�I think that's the most important thing,� Manchin said meekly.

�Everybody's on the same page,� Mnuchin reassured him.

�Okay, good,� Manchin said. �I hope everything goes well. I'll see you in a little bit.�

The senator left the room and then turned to an aide. �Well,� Manchin said, �he seemed defensive.�

Do it you coward!

quote:

In recent years, as Manchin has found himself increasingly out of step with his state's partisan makeup�not to mention the national Democratic Party�he's fielded numerous entreaties to jump to the GOP. �They all come to me. Donald Trump comes to me. Everybody comes to me: �Oh, just be a Republican, Joe,� � Manchin told me.

His Democratic critics often say the same thing. At a political event in Lewisburg, West Virginia, I asked Charkera Ervin, a Democratic activist, what she thought of Manchin. �I actually wrote an e-mail to him, and said, �If you get primaried by a Siamese cat, that cat has my full support,� � she replied. �I don't know how much progress I'm gonna really get out of him.�

Decorum.exe

quote:

In the meantime, Manchin tries to do what he can to change Washington. One afternoon recently, he decided to propose an amendment that he hoped might protect West Virginia V.A. facilities from closure. It didn't stand a chance of passing, but he thought it could be useful nonetheless to send a signal. �Everything's just posturing,� he explained.

Manchin was in his office, practicing his speech to introduce the amendment, when he noticed a voice mail on his cell phone. It was from Johnny Isakson, a Republican senator from Georgia. As the Republican in charge of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, it would be Isakson who would shoot down the amendment, but he had a favor to ask of Manchin. Isakson, who had been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease a few years back, was feeling especially tired that afternoon. He was calling to ask Manchin if he would withdraw the amendment so Isakson wouldn't have to go from his office to the Senate floor to object to it.

Manchin immediately called Isakson. �I'll do whatever you need me to do, buddy,� Manchin told Isakson. �You don't have to come over.� Manchin explained that he would hunt down a Republican senator to shoot down his amendment so Isakson wouldn't have to trouble himself with it. �You stay right in your office, do your stuff, and I'll make sure someone's there to object.�

Hanging up, Manchin turned to an aide. �Poor Johnny,� he said. �I mean, his health�I'm not gonna have him running back and forth.�

A couple of minutes later, he got North Carolina senator Thom Tillis on the phone. �Hey, Tom, can you do me a favor and Johnny Isakson a favor?� Manchin asked. He explained the situation and why Tillis might want to be the guy to kill Manchin's amendment. �I just don't want you to be too enthusiastic when you do it,� he said. When Manchin got off the phone, he let out a satisfied sigh.

He turned to me. �Lemme tell ya, that's what they don't do anymore,� he said. �That's the kind of stuff, Johnny�� His voice trailed off.

About 15 minutes later, Manchin would appear on the Senate floor to offer his amendment and Tillis would be there to object so the ailing Isakson could sit it out. Manchin's brand of collegiality carried the day. And five weeks later, Johnny Isakson's PAC donated $5,000 to Patrick Morrisey's Senate campaign to unseat Joe Manchin.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 15:46

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

I read the pictures on the Twitter link and I�m confident I don�t have to read more to know that he is trash.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 16:17

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Manchin will flip the second he has something to gain. If the Democrats ever have a one seat majority they can celebrate that for one second before he decides he needs to be true to his conscience and switches to the GOP. Counting on him is for suckers and the party should have backed his opponent in the primary if they actually gave a poo poo about anything they claim to.

Manchin is racist and bigoted trash and it's an embarrassment he's in the party leadership and constantly begged to for his loyalty.

Imagine a world where Blue State Republicans acted like Red State Democrats are allowed to. The idea of any Republican kissing Obama's rear end like Manchin does for Trump is beyond fantasy.

Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Sep 26, 2018

# ? Sep 26, 2018 16:18

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

For instance compare Manchin to this:

https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1044796222589063168?s=19

And ask which one is the Democratic party always kissing the rear end of and which they are silent about one of their ex-high ranking members running a soft spoiler campaign against and offering little vocal support for. Yeah a Senator is more powerful than a House representative but it's telling which one they are chummy with and which they obviously see as an enemy.

Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Sep 26, 2018

# ? Sep 26, 2018 17:00

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

sexpig by night posted:

to put it simply I'd give more of a poo poo if the libs weren't constantly rehabbing bush/reagan sub-humans and never-trump republicans just to score points. I genuinely would rather a smug dick with right views kinda sorta give a bit of clout to Putin's regime (not much but whatever we're pretending Greenwald is some earth shaking titan that suddenly empowers Putin when he says 'the FBI is bad') than Ellen dancing with Bush and people pretending James Comey is a good man because he got fired by our most overtly retarded president.

Yeah, it's the bizarre double standard that stands out to me. There are many other individuals who are considerably more influential than Greenwald and who do things a hell of a lot worse, yet they don't receive nearly the same sort of attacks.

Of course, from my perspective it's super obvious that this is just because of liberal political/cultural norms that "normalize" most mainstream figures, but it's difficult for them to see this because they usually value "being objective/fact-based" and aren't really willing to consider the possibility that maybe they aren't as clear-minded as they thought.

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Sep 26, 2018

# ? Sep 26, 2018 17:16

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

"Facts have a liberal bias"

Watches as liberal fact checkers use a conservative study to purposely mislead people and discredit MFA.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 17:27

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Actually it's good that Manchin writes good legislation for appearances' sake and teams up with his Republican buddies to kill it, because looking good is how he gets reelected and you don't want a Republican in that seat who will use his power to kill good legislation do you, idiot.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 17:40

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

I feel like there's a discussion to be had about stylistic preferences. Both Glenn Greenwald and Nathan Robinson (of Current Affairs) reviewed Michael Moore's new movie recently, and I think Robinson's is a much better piece of writing because it more clearly articulates why the film is useful from a leftist point of view, rather than spending a bunch of time trying to pretend like it (the review) doesn't have a clear viewpoint the way Greenwald's piece does. Greenwald's piece isn't bad per se, however, though I think it's hilarious that he's offended by "Trump wants to gently caress Ivanka" jokes and comparisons to Hitler.

I use these pieces as examples because they both have the same subject, but I think one of my big problems with Greenwald's writing is that he's usually trying to project a kind of smug detachment, like he has no politics of his own but everyone else isn't good enough for him. It's why I think his writing on animal welfare is his best, because he clearly and unabashedly takes a position and writes passionately about it instead of being a smug little shitlord.

Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Sep 26, 2018

# ? Sep 26, 2018 18:01

Nothus: Feb 22, 2001; Buglord

Lightning Knight posted:

I had to look up who Pierre Omidyar is. What is Greenwald’s association with him? He seems like a run of the mill techbro but I’m just looking at Wikipedia.

Edit: oh I see, he started a media company. Is that a bad thing? Is it a bad media outlet?

He's the money behind first look media and the Intercept. He also appears to tied into western funding of the recent Ukrainian coup (and associated nazi groups) and the investment arm of the GCC. Maybe it affects Greenwald's reporting and maybe Glen just sees him as a means to an end. It's murky and weird.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 18:17

Nothus: Feb 22, 2001; Buglord

joepinetree posted:

Greenwald was completely unrelated to the Reality Winner thing (Greenwald is a columnist and holds a ceremonial title at the intercept). In addition, while the whole showing the printing marks thing was an obvious gently caress up, it is important to understand that the main reason Winner was caught wasn't that. That was a minor thing used to provide confirmation. Winner emailed the intercept from her work email, and then later from her work computer. The printing marks thing may have given them additional evidence, but she was pretty much done the second she did that. There's no publication that can ensure your anonymity if you keep emailing them from your work email and work computer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.86e9c4413138

He's listed #2 on the masthead as founding editor and columnist, so forgive me if I don't buy that he's purely emeritus. Regardless of the relative role the Intercept's sloppiness in the ultimate prosecution of Winner, it's a bad look for the organization.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 18:27

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

I'm not gonna lie, if you somehow get into a government position with a security clearance and still think it's a good idea to send a whistleblower email from your work email, you might be an idiot. Like I'm sure the Intercept maybe could've done better but like... lol.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 18:28

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Nothus posted:

He's listed #2 on the masthead as founding editor and columnist, so forgive me if I don't buy that he's purely emeritus. Regardless of the relative role the Intercept's sloppiness in the ultimate prosecution of Winner, it's a bad look for the organization.

Another person who doesn't know what ceremonial titles mean.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 18:55

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1044748414188244997?s=21

# ? Sep 26, 2018 19:05

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

The next time a Democrat is complaining about Greenwald remind them of this:

quote:

MSNBC canceled Phil Donahue�s talkshow after an internal memo (leaked to the All Your TV website, 2/25/03) argued that he would be a �difficult public face for NBC in a time of war�. He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration�s motives.� The report warned that the Donahue show could be �a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.� An email from a network executive, also leaked to All Your TV (3/5/03), suggested that it would be �unlikely� that Donahue could be used by MSNBC to �reinvent itself� and �cross-pollinate our programming� with the �anticipated larger audience who will tune in during a time of war� by linking pundits to war coverage, �particularly given his public stance on the advisability of the war effort.�

# ? Sep 26, 2018 19:15

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Or Jim Risen detailing all the times the government got the NYTime to kill or hold off on one of his stories.

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/my-life-as-a-new-york-times-reporter-in-the-shadow-of-the-war-on-terror/

quote:

In late 2002, for instance, I called the CIA for comment on a story about the existence of a secret CIA prison in Thailand that had just been created to house Al Qaeda detainees, including Abu Zubaydah. In response, Bush administration officials called the Times and got the paper to kill the story.
...

What angered me most was that while they were burying my skeptical stories, the editors were not only giving banner headlines to stories asserting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they were also demanding that I help match stories from other publications about Iraq�s purported WMD programs. I grew so sick of this that when the Washington Post reported that Iraq had turned over nerve gas to terrorists, I refused to try to match the story. One mid-level editor in the Washington bureau yelled at me for my refusal. He came to my desk carrying a golf club while berating me after I told him that the story was bullshit and I wasn�t going to make any calls on it.

...

I was about to start a long-scheduled leave to write a book about the CIA and the Bush administration. I was furious that the Times had killed both the Iran and the NSA stories, and angry that the White House was successfully suppressing the truth. I told myself that if I kept going along with decisions to cut, bury, or outright kill so many stories, as I had the last few years, I wouldn�t be able to respect myself.

...

e wanted me to take the NSA story out of my book. I responded that I wanted the NSA story to be published both in the Times and in my book.

We began to talk almost every day about how to resolve our impasse. Initially, I suggested the paper run the NSA story when my book came out, under the kind of arrangement that the Washington Post seemed to have with Bob Woodward. The Post regularly excerpted Woodward�s books on its front page, giving the paper Woodward�s scoops and his books enormous publicity.

That proposal went nowhere. Eventually, Taubman countered that the paper would only consider running the NSA story if I first agreed to remove it from my book and thus, give the paper the chance to reconsider its publication without any undue pressure. But I knew the only reason the Times would even consider running the NSA story was if I kept it in my book.

# ? Sep 26, 2018 19:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 11:20

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Helsing posted:

The next time a Democrat is complaining about Greenwald remind them of this:

Their argument, from my experience, would be something along the lines that Democrats (and thus affiliated media) have changed and are different now. This is usually the angle they use if you bring up stuff like Democrats having been opposed to gay marriage or having supported the Iraq War.

Either that, or they will claim it is "whataboutism."

# ? Sep 26, 2018 20:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL THUNDERDOME: "Democrats Bad" Containment Zone

«‹›217 »