In Fake News we trust.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

We are a representative democracy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We are a constitutional democratic republic. We are a republic comprised of a union of various states. The citizens of MA cannot vote for MI representatives. Those representatives do not represent a unitary We. The only elected official of the unitary We is the President. And the electoral college in each state, who the citizens did not directly elect as such, cast the formal vote for President.

The historical objective of Progressives is the nullification of the constitutional and republic parts, recognizing, according to their scholars, that the Constitution once served a purpose but now is an impediment to the unitary We democracy they wish to replace it with.

I have asked the members on this forum several times if they think the states are necessary. No answer. Do you think it would be better if we had a fully unitary democracy? And do you agree with the Progressive notion that who we vote for should not be hampered by checks and balances or limited to a few "enumerated" powers?

[Pete F.]

You could move to the South east and secede, I saw a poll recently that a large percentage of Trumplicans there want to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You could move to the South east and secede, I saw a poll recently that a large percentage of Trumplicans there want to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why start another Civil War?

[detbuch]

Pete F said it was time for me to post a one hour video. Here it is. This is outstanding! It wraps up how and why journalism has deteriorated from the mid 20th century until today. This is brilliant in insight and in its brevity of covering a large and long drift of journalism from a true adversarial and investigative institution, which served the need of the public to have an independent and honest eye observing and reporting what those with political and economic power are up to, into into a partnership with those establishment holders of power.

Why Journalism is Broken:

[Pete F.]

Shorter video and this one actually occurs

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Shorter video and this one actually occurs

The Glen Greenwald discussion on why journalism is broken did actually occur. It is a brilliantly condensed and accurate analysis.

One, that I think you would hate because, among so many other things, it specifically nails why corporate media (and you) are so virulently invested in supporting and creating all the anti-Trump conspiracies.

But it is much more than that. Trump is not commended or lauded or made to look good in any way. Greenwald is not in the least pro-Trump. He is an old school journalist who is distinctly and liberally Progressive in his politics.

It is not about Trump. It is strictly about how and why journalism, and journalists, mainly in corporate media, changed beginning in mid 20th century till now from the previous challenger and rigorous investigator and often hater of the country's power centers to being a complicit partner in the power structure's status quo agenda. He remains more uniquely independent outside of the status quo corporate media, and has a desire to find and report the malfeasance on all sides.

On the other hand, you call attention to the mundane and irrelevant sound of a flushing toilet which occurs billions of times daily on planet earth. Which reminds one of the parrot like mimicry of what has broken journalism, and how it sounds when you flush it into the forum.

[Pete F.]

DISGUSTING & DANGEROUS,” screamed the banner headline at the bottom of the television screen, just under the blonde-sheathed visage of Fox News’ Laura Ingraham. “GREENWALD BLASTS INTERCEPT FOR SMEARING INGRAHAM GUESTS.”

And so during a recent episode of The Ingraham Angle, Glenn Greenwald—who is so familiar to the top-rated cable channel’s millions of viewers that he requires only a surname—put on a suit and tie in Rio de Janeiro, where he lives, to continue doing what has occupied his energies for much of the past month.

That’s deploying every conceivable platform—from Twitter (where he has 1.6 million followers) to YouTube to Substack to an array of popular conservative websites to the very top of the ziggurat, Rupert Murdoch’s corporate cash cow—to denounce former friends and colleagues at The Intercept, the left-leaning digital news and opinion site he co-founded with Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill in 2013.

“These millennial digital liberal outlets like the Intercept, BuzzFeed, the Huffington Post, so many of them—they think that if you’re a conservative, you’re not really a journalist,” the 54-year-old Greenwald intoned (a tad weirdly, because most of his targets are in their late forties and fifties), while Ingraham could barely contain a gleeful grin. “They think that you’re part of this crypto-fascist movement, that you’re the enemy,” he added—referring to two young conservative videographers whose coverage of Black Lives Matter and other protests came under The Intercept’s withering scrutiny.

This past month has occasioned spectacular success, of a sort, for the pugnacious contrarian pundit, an erstwhile leftist journalist-turned-Donald Trump defender who once again is proving his mastery of the right-wing media ecosystem.

Indeed, in a self-perpetuating feedback loop that runs from Twitter to Fox News and back again, Greenwald has managed, like Trump before him, to orchestrate his very own news cycles.

Last year, following his exit from The Intercept, Greenwald admitted to The Daily Beast that Fox News airs its share of “horrific, toxic, damaging, destructive, and bigoted” content. However, he defended his frequent Fox hits, saying, “I have no doubt that some people at the Intercept were upset that I was going on Fox, but I would no sooner allow anyone to dictate to me which shows I can go on than I would allow anyone to censor my opinions.”

And now he is effectively operating as something of a Fox News assignment editor, as indicated by The Daily Beast’s spot check of the frequency with which Greenwald’s online musings on social media and elsewhere, especially his Substack page, have served as the basis for dozens of articles on Fox News’ website.

[scottw]

love when pete is fired up....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

DISGUSTING & DANGEROUS,” screamed the banner headline at the bottom of the television screen, just under the blonde-sheathed visage of Fox News’ Laura Ingraham. “GREENWALD BLASTS INTERCEPT FOR SMEARING INGRAHAM GUESTS.”

Oh goodie, a Fox News banner headline. Did Greenwald write it. Doubtful. And shouldn't smearing people be blasted?

And so during a recent episode of The Ingraham Angle, Glenn Greenwald—who is so familiar to the top-rated cable channel’s millions of viewers that he requires only a surname—put on a suit and tie in Rio de Janeiro, where he lives, to continue doing what has occupied his energies for much of the past month.

Sounds like a hard working guy. But appearing on Ingraham's show? How dare he? Are you implying that's a bad thing? Or is it somebody you're quoting? Don't see any citation.

That’s deploying every conceivable platform—from Twitter (where he has 1.6 million followers) to YouTube to Substack to an array of popular conservative websites to the very top of the ziggurat, Rupert Murdoch’s corporate cash cow—to denounce former friends and colleagues at The Intercept, the left-leaning digital news and opinion site he co-founded with Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill in 2013.

Oh wow, the only thing that "has occupied his energies for much of the past month" is denouncing former friends and colleagues at The Intercept." That's a strange thing to say because I've checked out several of his videos lately and very few of the ones I've seen have solely focussed on, if at all, his former associates at The Intercept, unless he's asked, and their content is much vaster in scope than just the intercept. I know that when he left he was often questioned about them and he did comment, and even had some nice or good things to say about some of them. They certainly were not supportive of him.

And deploying every conceivable platform!! This is outrageous. And how did he miss the Progressive outlets? Are they not "conceivable"? Would they allow him to deploy them?


“These millennial digital liberal outlets like the Intercept, BuzzFeed, the Huffington Post, so many of them—they think that if you’re a conservative, you’re not really a journalist,” the 54-year-old Greenwald intoned (a tad weirdly, because most of his targets are in their late forties and fifties),

I think there is much truth to what he said. And he's not a "conservative." But, I guess, there must be some disreputable reason he said such a thing.

while Ingraham could barely contain a gleeful grin.

I commend you (or the person you're quoting) for being able to detect someone on TV barely containing something, and why shouldn't she have a gleeful grin. Rachel Maddow wouldn't gleefully grin at something a "conservative" said that mirrored her opinions? Gee, how can you be sure that a grin is gleeful, not just a grin. And why a grin, not just a smile. Ahh . . . journalism is so honest, isn't it. It just tries to give you facts, not opinions, or conjectures, or insinuations.

“They think that you’re part of this crypto-fascist movement, that you’re the enemy,” he added—referring to two young conservative videographers whose coverage of Black Lives Matter and other protests came under The Intercept’s withering scrutiny.

Uh oh, Greenwald is expressing an opinion or conjecture. How dare he. Only corporate journalists and Pete F. are allowed to do that.

This past month has occasioned spectacular success, of a sort, for the pugnacious contrarian pundit, an erstwhile leftist journalist-turned-Donald Trump defender who once again is proving his mastery of the right-wing media ecosystem.

"erstwhile leftist journalist-turned-Donald Trump defender"?--I haven't heard that he is no longer erstwhile or leftist or a journalist. Thought he was still all that (an erstwhile journalist who has leftist political views but doesn't let that cloud his journalism). Nor have I heard him defend Trump per se. He has not defended Trump as a person. Nor has he defended, on the whole, Trump's policies, personal opinions, or character. He has spoken against what he considers lies or inaccuracies about Trump that have been used as political weapons. But he has not said that he is for or in favor of Trump. He has implied or said otherwise.

Indeed, in a self-perpetuating feedback loop that runs from Twitter to Fox News and back again, Greenwald has managed, like Trump before him, to orchestrate his very own news cycles.

How dare he do such an anti-social, self perpetuating thing! It's simply indefensible and unscrupulous. No one, except Trump, apparently, has done this. And if Trump did it, it must be immoral and unprincipled.

Gee it seems like corporate media is able to orchestrate its very own news cycles. But, you know, they're the real legitimate thing. So what they do is good for us.


Last year, following his exit from The Intercept, Greenwald admitted to The Daily Beast that Fox News airs its share of “horrific, toxic, damaging, destructive, and bigoted” content.

He "admitted" to The Daily Beast (probly a part of his feedback loop). As if he "confessed" his sin of associating with Fox News. And yet he did not talk nice about it. So if he accepts invitations to go on Fox he is no longer an erstwhile leftist journalist and is therefor a Donald Trump defender. But if he talks to The Daily Beast, then he is again an erstwhile leftist journalist. Maybe he's an erstwhile journalist both ways. I think so.

However, he defended his frequent Fox hits, saying, “I have no doubt that some people at the Intercept were upset that I was going on Fox, but I would no sooner allow anyone to dictate to me which shows I can go on than I would allow anyone to censor my opinions.”

Now that sounds like an erstwhile journalist to me. But I guess, for some, like you or who you're quoting, going on Fox is abandoning journalism. And it's especially honorable if you refuse to do so if you're pressured by one-sided leftist supposed journalists.

And now he is effectively operating as something of a Fox News assignment editor, as indicated by The Daily Beast’s spot check of the frequency with which Greenwald’s online musings on social media and elsewhere, especially his Substack page, have served as the basis for dozens of articles on Fox News’ website.

"effectively operating as something of a"--now that's a beautifully effective and weaselly mouthful of nothing. You, or whoever you're quoting has demonstrated his mastery of the glib slant. Fakery of the highest linguistic order. A charlatan trying to imply that Greenwald is a fraud.

Neither you nor who you quote has pointed out what is fraudulent in Greenwald's writing or videos. You have mentioned nothing about the video discussion with him in this thread. You just go to the old trick of trying to defame him by association. Sort of a fake news thing, or calling something not by its proper name.

[Pete F.]

Glenn Greenwald is on another epic rant about evil Big Tech and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Meanwhile, we got more evidence last night of Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election as well as indictments of GOP operatives funneling Russian money to Trump in 2016.

Where is Glenn?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Glenn Greenwald is on another epic rant about evil Big Tech and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

So what is false about his "epic rant"?

Where is Glenn?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He continues to do great and honest work. Here's another good one dealing with fake news and fake politics. Sorry that it's not an hour long, only about 14 minutes. But really good:

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Glenn Greenwald is on another epic rant about evil Big Tech and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Our trust in fake news is the topic of this thread. So are you implying that what you label as an "epic rant" (I think that you use derogatory labels as a form of evidence or proof of something being bad) is fake news? Please show us what's fake about it.

BTW, if it is fake, then bad on him.

Meanwhile, we got more evidence last night of Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election as well as indictments of GOP operatives funneling Russian money to Trump in 2016.

Because you didn't put a derogatory label on those things, are you signaling that they are good and worthy efforts. Of course, if it is strictly reporting that those things occurred, without commenting or editorializing about the eventual outcome and slanting in order to shape our opinion, then that is not fake news. For you, I gather, negative "evidence" about Trump is gospel testimony of malfeasance. And proof that Trump is all manner of bad things.

Where is Glenn?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Glenn is not a beat reporter. He doesn't merely report the news. He comments on it, especially about political or legal anomalies, lies, and ramifications. I don't know if he's commented on the evidence or indictments you mentioned. I'm aware of only a few things out of the many he has written or spoken about. I don't subscribe to his podcast or log in to his Substack articles.

You can contact him if you want his opinion on something, or if he has one. And if you care to point out what is fake about his stuff, rather than merely giving it a pejorative label, that would be helpful. I think all fake news should be exposed, regardless of whose ox is gored.

Or are you just using this thread, not to expose fake news, but to keep us up to the last bit of news that can permanently demolish Trump?

Since you brought him up re fake news, I found this article by Greenwald about the ACLU interesting re its current view of government mandates on the Covid pandemic in Contrast to its recent past view of such mandates. Care to tell us what's fake about it?

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the...ovid-denounced

[Pete F.]

The new revelations about the Trump campaign’s memo admitting their own Dominion claims were false will not only bolster the existing Dominion cases against Giuliani & Powell, it surely bolsters a potential new case against the Trump campaign itself if Dominion chooses to sue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The new revelations about the Trump campaign’s memo admitting their own Dominion claims were false will not only bolster the existing Dominion cases against Giuliani & Powell, it surely bolsters a potential new case against the Trump campaign itself if Dominion chooses to sue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Was the Trump campaign a news agency? Were they journalists or reporters? Is your post a distraction? A digressive, extraneous, off-topic message, equal to trolling?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Was the Trump campaign a news agency? Were they journalists or reporters? Is your post a distraction? A digressive, extraneous, off-topic message, equal to trolling?

The truth about the Trump organization and Russia is coming to light
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The truth about the Trump organization and Russia is coming to light
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Much of the truth has already come to light. Is this related to the topic of this thread or are you trolling again? You seem to enjoy trolling. Perhaps, when you imply somebody else is trolling, you actually approve of it.

[Pete F.]

Actually most of the truth was buried by Barr and obstructed by Trump

President Bush announces his endorsement of January 6 Committee Chair Liz Cheney, and that he will host a fundraiser for her reelection campaign. Trump endorsed her opponent and is livid that Bush is backing someone who voted to impeach him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Actually most of the truth was buried by Barr and obstructed by Trump

Actually this is not true.

President Bush announces his endorsement of January 6 Committee Chair Liz Cheney, and that he will host a fundraiser for her reelection campaign. Trump endorsed her opponent and is livid that Bush is backing someone who voted to impeach him.

I think we all have already heard about this. Old news. And Bush was a stupid right wing war monger--not to be trusted. Troll much?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I think we all have already heard about this. Old news. And Bush was a stupid right wing war monger--not to be trusted. Troll much?

Actually it is
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Actually it is
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes you are.

[Pete F.]

FBI Director Chris Wray tells US House committee to expect more "superseding indictments" with new charges in Jan 6 cases
But they were just tourists
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

FBI Director Chris Wray tells US House committee to expect more "superseding indictments" with new charges in Jan 6 cases
But they were just tourists
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Morea old news that the media has already told us. Troll much?

[Pete F.]

In Glennspeak, "left-right realignment" is a concept whereby Glenn uses the most implausible explanations for why he's always sounded and acted like a Trumpist, while sometimes pretending to be a radical leftist -- albeit only when leftist policies had no chance of enactment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

In Glennspeak, "left-right realignment" is a concept whereby Glenn uses the most implausible explanations for why he's always sounded and acted like a Trumpist, while sometimes pretending to be a radical leftist -- albeit only when leftist policies had no chance of enactment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are either ignorant, stupid, or a liar. Probably all those. He has not "always sounded and acted like a Trumpist". He has many times, usually, perhaps always, been the opposite of what anti-Trumpists would think a Trumpist sounds like.

I could link a lot of videos with him, or articles by him, but I'll just give you this one. And he has written for Salon, The Guardian, The Intercept, and other leftist mags, which don't publish "Trumpist" sounding articles.

Of course you haven't actually discussed any of those that I posted before, and probably won't about this one. You just either try the kill the messenger tactic, or attach to them some negative, defamatory label or unsubstantiated opinion or accusation. But others, who really care about what you say, and about its accuracy or truth can check this video out. And judge if what you said is true (it isn't, but you use any disreputable, lying, exaggerating, insinuating, means in order to persuade) :

[Pete F.]

Glenn Greenwald sanitizes the conservative movement's racist views on immigration; claims that a lot of the anger at immigrants is valid; shares that he's always been conservative; laments that the working class dream is dead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Glenn Greenwald sanitizes the conservative movement's racist views on immigration; claims that a lot of the anger at immigrants is valid; shares that he's always been conservative; laments that the working class dream is dead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now that your lie that Greenwald has "always sounded and acted like a Trumpist" has been debunked by the above video, it's that time for you to throw in some more vague and undefined accusations. It's what you do. It's not clear what you mean by "sanitizes". Nor which supposedly "racist" views. Many things have been called "racist" by the left when they actually aren't. "Racist" has become the chief empty but magic leftist word to attack targets on the right . And most of the anger re "immigration" is not directed at the immigrants, but to the politicians and agencies that support and abet what the ILLEGAL immigrants are doing. It is the illegal part, not the immigration part, that stirs up anger. And if he "shares" that he has always been a conservative, what does he mean by "conservative"? Does he want to conserve the founding poiitical system of government? I think so. Is he a Republican? I definitely don't think so. Does he want to conserve various iconic American values? I think so. Does he lean toward many social, political, and economic Progressive policies. I think so. And if he laments that the working class dream is dead, that doesn't sound much different than your lamentations about it.

I don't think he uses the kill the messenger tactic in order to persuade, like some on this forum resort do. Nor does he resort to constant insinuation and conjecture and outright repeated lies. He just plainly, with back-up and proof and documentation, tells it like it is.

Do I believe that everything he says or thinks or supports is, in my opinion, right and good? Absolutely not. Do I think he actually believes what he says and is not bull$hitting us to gain money, power, acclaim, or to win an argument? Yes, I think he is a straight shooter. Do I believe that he is lying for the supposedly greater good? No, I think he tells what he considers the truth, regardless of who or which "side" is hurt by it.

[Pete F.]

Greenwald looked at Rudy Giuliani's career trajectory from 2001-2021 and thought, 'I want what he's having.'
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Greenwald looked at Rudy Giuliani's career trajectory from 2001-2021 and thought, 'I want what he's having.'
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's the full context? What does he want that Giuliani is having? He certainly doesn't want the legal threats and notoriety that Giuliani is undergoing. He has eschewed money which helped rich folks from being sued--don't think he wants Giuliani's money

Among many other things, he said":

"I knew that I didn't want to be representing rich people. I wanted to be suing them"--in favor of those poorer folks in their suits against the rich.

He has said"

"We'd go in there to torment the conservatives," he recalled. "But the more I started doing it, the more I got drawn into the conversations. I stayed there for two years and made friends with all these people ... I argued with them, debated with them. I was totally openly gay, and they were very accepting. It was an eye-opening experience, and it taught me not to make assumptions about who people are."

"Truth matters. Noble lies are never justified no matter the cause, especially in journalism."

Greenwald has said that systemic racism has existed in this country since its founding. He has said the the overwhelming majority of protests (such as against police "unrestrained violence" against citizens, especially against blacks) are justified. He has said that Trump's threat to use military to restore order in the streets was a threat to democracy.

Check the above videos that I posted to note his concerns over Trump's threats to the country when he was elected.

You keep trying to discredit Greenwald by casting what you seem to think are aspersions, without actually discussing a video or article which could credit his truth seeking, especially if it might disturb or debunk some anti-Trump conspiracy.

You revert to the kill the messenger or guilt by association type propaganda when you can't make a cogent argument.