@mrbojangles25: that's non sense, you can't expect to be able to control any individual or press on how to conduct an interview. You can't say "free speech is great" and then complain about free speech. It's an interview, if Putin lies durring his interview it wouldn't be the first time someone's lied in an interview..
CNN interviewed saddam hussein back in the day, this is free country, people gotta start acting like it, we don't need the government controlling who we are allowed to hear or see. Not trying to live like I'm under the boot of the CCP
@mrbojangles25: that's non sense, you can't expect to be able to control any individual or press on how to conduct an interview. You can't say "free speech is great" and then complain about free speech. It's an interview, if Putin lies durring his interview it wouldn't be the first time someone's lied in an interview..
CNN interviewed saddam hussein back in the day, this is free country, people gotta start acting like it, we don't need the government controlling who we are allowed to hear or see. Not trying to live like I'm under the boot of the CCP
It's something we need to regulate. Do you think that Russian oligarchs and even the Russian state should be able to buy their way into American news and social media outlets, establish their own puppets, run propaganda, and worse?
At that point I'd make the argument our free speech rights have been compromised to such an extent that we do need to control it. Otherwise American laws, beliefs, and traditions are serving foreign and hostile agents, and if that doesn't disgust and terrify you, I don't know what will.
In either case, I think there is a lot of self-regulation that occurs, which (as you noted) is why no major media outlets interview Putin. They don't want to appear to be kompromatlike Tucker, for example, or they know that interviewing Putin will serve his interests and harm Ukraine's and that's the opposite of being impartial (which is what the media should strive to be).
@mrbojangles25: that's non sense, you can't expect to be able to control any individual or press on how to conduct an interview. You can't say "free speech is great" and then complain about free speech. It's an interview, if Putin lies durring his interview it wouldn't be the first time someone's lied in an interview..
CNN interviewed saddam hussein back in the day, this is free country, people gotta start acting like it, we don't need the government controlling who we are allowed to hear or see. Not trying to live like I'm under the boot of the CCP
@mrbojangles25: It's impossible to regulate. What would they do arrest him for making an interview?
I also don't believe his claims that the government tried to stop him.
Like how did they try to stop him? If it happened you should be able to say how.
I think he was just caught with his pants down working for a foreign rival that is actively trying to annex another country and he tried to defer the blame.
Benny Johnsonis an American conservative political commentator and YouTuber. He was a staff writer at BuzzFeed until he was fired following revelations that many of his published articles were plagiarized. Johnson later worked at various conservative outlets.
In August 2017, Johnson wrote an article containing the most controversial tweets of what he thought was the Boston antifa Twitter account, but what was a fake account intended to lampoon antifa. Initially an editorial note was added, and the article was later removed
Benny Johnsonis an American conservative political commentator and YouTuber. He was a staff writer at BuzzFeed until he was fired following revelations that many of his published articles were plagiarized. Johnson later worked at various conservative outlets.
In August 2017, Johnson wrote an article containing the most controversial tweets of what he thought was the Boston antifa Twitter account, but what was a fake account intended to lampoon antifa. Initially an editorial note was added, and the article was later removed
That pattern again.
More like there's your pattern again... ignoring all information discussed.. but instead trying to character assassinate the person talking... because you lack the ability to challenge the information you disagree with. Respectfully.
Benny Johnsonis an American conservative political commentator and YouTuber. He was a staff writer at BuzzFeed until he was fired following revelations that many of his published articles were plagiarized. Johnson later worked at various conservative outlets.
In August 2017, Johnson wrote an article containing the most controversial tweets of what he thought was the Boston antifa Twitter account, but what was a fake account intended to lampoon antifa. Initially an editorial note was added, and the article was later removed
That pattern again.
More like there's your pattern again... ignoring all information discussed.. but instead trying to character assassinate the person talking... because you lack the ability to challenge the information you disagree with. Respectfully.
Consistently posting disgraced right-wing individuals who make bad faith arguments for agenda, on a loop, for years on end. It's spelt this out for you over and over and over, and you still do it.
This is not information, it's slop. I'm able to do this assassination all the time, because they are bad people who did bad things.
A way to circumvent this is to not do it.
Speaking of which, saw your old pal the other day.
(Twice convicted sex offender Scott Ritter)
He was reenacting that epic ending scene from Attack Of The Clones, except with a pedophile at the podium and a bunch of non CGI bearded rapists.
@sargentd: I will give you an example. You guys were discussing whether the government should be able to stop a journalist from interviewing the head of a global political rival to the USA, without knowing If the government actually tried to stop tucker or if tucker has simply invented that.
Tucker himself is very unreliable and you can find countless of occasions in which he has said factually wrong things.
@mrbojangles25: It's impossible to regulate. What would they do arrest him for making an interview?
I also don't believe his claims that the government tried to stop him.
Like how did they try to stop him? If it happened you should be able to say how.
I think he was just caught with his pants down working for a foreign rival that is actively trying to annex another country and he tried to defer the blame.
Regulation doesn't necessarily have to mean censorship. It can mean moderation of some kind.
So for example, let Tucker say what he wants, but if he has a tendency to lie and mislead, then moderate him. If he has a 30-minute show, then take away 15 of those minutes so an agency can correct his lies during his show as he says them. And make the hosting network or agency pay for it.
It'll create jobs and generate tax revenue, too! And get the lies off the air! What's not to love 😋
If history is any indication, Russia has never lost a war without first losing at least 500,00 men. Last estimate is between 70,000 - 150,000. So Ukraine has a hell of a ways to go.
Then again, they have never won an offensive war (on their own) without controlling left bank Ukraine in the first year, which they haven't been able to do.
In August 2018, Owens had a dispute with Sam Lucas, cousin of Mollie Tibbetts, who had been murdered by Cristhian Bahena Rivera, a 24-year-old Mexican undocumented immigrant.[154] Tibbetts's cousin said that Owens had exploited Tibbetts's death for "political propaganda".[155][156] Owens responded by describing Lucas's criticism as a "strange" attack on Trump supporters. Later that month, the University of Iowa's chapter of Turning Point USA criticized Owens for "public harassment" towards a member of Tibbetts's family, and the executive board members of the chapter all resigned in protest.[157]
Promotion of conspiracy theories
Owens has been criticized for promoting conspiracy theories, including claims that the Moon landings were faked, mostly through her social media profiles and television and media appearances.[158] Owens has appeared on fringe conspiracy websites, such as InfoWars.[27][6] In 2018, she was a guest host on Fox News, and began to distance herself from the far-right conspiracy websites, although she refused to criticize InfoWars or its hosts.[17]
During the October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts targeting prominent Democrats, Owens took to Twitter to promote the conspiracy theory that the mailings were sent by leftists.[159] After authorities arrested a 56-year-old suspect who was a registered Republican and Trump supporter, Owens deleted her tweet without explanation.[160]
Comments about Adolf Hitler
Representative Ted Lieu playing a recording of Owens's statements on Hitler and Owens responding to it
At the launch of the British offshoot Turning Point UK in December 2018, Owens made comments about Adolf Hitler.[161] She was responding to an audience member who asked for a "long-term prognosis" about the terms "globalism" and "nationalism". Owens said:[161][162]
I actually don't have any problems at all with the word "nationalism". I think that the definition gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don't want. Whenever we say "nationalism" the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, [Hitler] was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay, fine. The problem is that he wanted—he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. That's not, to me, that's not nationalism
Following heavy criticism for her comments, Owens clarified them on Twitter and in a Judiciary Committee hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives in February 2019.[163] Owens said that "[Hitler] was a homicidal, psychopathic, maniac that killed his own people" and "[Hitler] was not a nationalist, [he] murdered his own people; a nationalist would not kill their own people". She said that the point of her comments was to say that there is "no excuse or defense ever for ... everything that [Hitler] did".[161][164] She also said that her comments were about Hitler's crimes against Jews.[163]
Owens's comments about Hitler were played in April 2019 by Representative Ted Lieu during testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee about the issue of increasing hate crimes and white supremacy in America. Lieu said that he did not know Owens and was just going to let her own words characterize her, before playing the audio clip. Owens responded that Lieu had deliberately omitted an interviewer's question that provided critical context to her words, with the intent of misrepresenting them as an endorsement of Hitler, to smear her reputation.[165] She concluded this testimony by stating her opinion Lieu was "assuming that black people will not pursue the full two hour clip" and that the full clip had been "purposefully extracted" in order to "create a different narrative."[166]Donald Trump Jr. praised Owens on Twitter for "[calling] out the Dems on their purposeful manipulation of facts for their narrative".[167]
Mention in Christchurch shooter's manifesto
Brenton Harrison Tarrant, the terrorist who committed the Christchurch mosque shootings, produced a manifesto prior to committing the shootings in which he wrote that Owens had "influenced [him] above all".[168][169] According to journalist Robert Evans, it was "possible, even likely", that Tarrant was a fan of Owens, considering her rhetoric against Muslim immigrants but that, in context, his references to her may have been an example of "shitposting" intended to provoke political conflict.[170][171] For instance, the line "Though I will have to disavow some of [Owens's] beliefs, the extreme actions she calls for are too much, even for my tastes" was assessed by The Root as trolling.[172]
Hours after the shootings, Owens posted a tweet in reaction to allegations that she inspired the mass murder, saying that she never created any content espousing her views on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution or Islam.[173] Her tweet was criticized as "glib" when it was reported that she actually had posted tweets about the Second Amendment and Islam.[174][175][176][113] She later made formal statements rejecting any connection to the terrorist.[113]
It's more than in interview, though. It's a platform to lie, and spread lies. With a built-in audience ready to buy into those lies.
I get into this debate with my brother-in-law about Joe Rogan sometimes. Free speech is great. I think having a platform for civil debate and discourse is awesome. I think a lot of wealthy or influential people on paper have the means to promote these things and they should promote them so people that don't normally get exposed to new ideas can hear them, and then hear counterpoints to these ideas as well.
The issue is, we don't get the whole package. What we get is a guest going on, being told before hand it will be a safe environment for him; because it's not about the exchange of ideas, it's about generating revenue. And so-and-so won't go on as a guest if their ideas are challenged.
So some quack goes on Joe Rogan to talk about how raw meat is great and Joe Rogan just nods his head and maybe says something funny, but we don't get another view about how raw meat is actually pretty terrible for you and how your average American probably eats too much of it, as evidenced by rampant obesity, heart disease, and cholesterol levels in the US.
Likewise, I imagine this interview with Putin will occur and Putin will lie. And Tucker will probably go off a script. And Tucker will probably push back in a rehearsed faux show of accountability and the somewhat-smart minority of his viewers will be "Oh, see, he pushed back, he wasn't just lying down for Putin. This is very credible" but mostly it's just to reinforce the views of his idiot viewers and to convert more.
TL;DR: this isn't about discourse, debate, and the free exchange of ideas. It's propaganda and profit-driven entertainment.
This just goes to show it's not actually an interview.
No serious journalist would give Putin a platform to lie, and Putin wouldn't interview with any serious journalist because he knows his lies would shatter under little scrutiny.
Yes.
What Russia is partly relying on now is support for Ukraine dying through prolonged apathy and instability.
It has a dictatorship, a grip on people. Setting up to make this last years. Able to wield a powerful propaganda narrative with a complete clampdown on any dissent. Elections rigs round the clock etc..
Due to democracy, freedom of speech, leaders switching, interest fading, it creates a perfect environment for them to foment instability, encroaching influence. Be it bot farms, propaganda or willingly.
Argue why (and it's obvious) this is why Tucker Orange Man is being used, he's a spearhead for the right. He can influence them, and will. Just look at a certain person here to see the hamster wheel turn.
Also from the stuff i've read, the "border" is an excuse to try not support them. Not because they care, but because they can use it to up Trumps chances of election and hurt Biden. Self-serving under the guise of empathy. Willing to have hundreds of thousands of people die so an orange rapist man can get back in power.
Brave Un Stunning.
You've been around when Politics was here. Seen you posting for the last 2 odd years. Here's a simple question, have you, at any point ever, seen Sarge attack or criticize Russia beyond an immediate defense response when accused? How many times has he spammed anti-Ukraine videos? Or videos in general, videos with the sole nature to prop Russia and weaken Ukriane perception?
A lot of it depends on the election results. A Trump victory would be a significant victory for Putin. If the status quo remains I can't see them succeeding though. They're running out of resources and positive moral and the sanctions imposed on them will become increasingly troublesome.
A lot of it depends on the election results. A Trump victory would be a significant victory for Putin. If the status quo remains I can't see them succeeding though. They're running out of resources and positive moral and the sanctions imposed on them will become increasingly troublesome.
It will be an interesting year.
Yeah. There's a saying "Where America goes, so too goes the world" or something along those lines.
I think that is incredibly true right now. Not saying that from any egotistical sense, either. Whoever wins the US election will change US culture, policy, likely get to appoint two SC justices (especially if GOP wins, then two will retire for sure), and also influence what goes on with Russian and Ukraine and Palestine and Israel.
Like you said: it will be an interesting, eventful year.
Been a while since I've followed this conflict (been focusing more on another conflict lately). Any brief summary update on what's happening with the Russia-Ukraine war?
I'd recommend Jake Broe if want to follow it. He posts stuff almost daily and isn't a dubious source.
Man was literally labeled a liar and entertainer (and non-journalist) BY HIS OWN LEGAL DEFENSE TEAM during his defamation trials. He was then fired from FOX News despite being a top earner for the network.
Ukraine wish Trump was in, war never would of happened.
Biden should of done it the american way. Told Putin if you invade Ukraine you will feel the wrath of the united states army. would of saved Billions and alot of our ammo. Instead giving it away to small weak Country.
Been a while since I've followed this conflict. Any brief summary update on what's happening with the Ukraine war lately?
Still stalemate mostly.
Russia has been really aggressive the last couple months across the whole front but with reported extremely high casualty rates, speculated by some reports to still be around 5 to 1, or even 10 to 1 in specific locations. But their meatgrinder is apparently having "success" despite this complete disregard for life, as Ukraine doesn't have the supplies to keep up.
There's a huge push on the city of Avdiivka that's been going on for months and is basically Bakhmut 2.0. Russia has lost six hundred vehicles on that front, vs 40-50 for Ukraine. This is according to independent reports and geolocation.
Across the whole front, Russia has taken back the initiative. They've made some gains across the front, but nothing significant, usually just pushes of a square kilometer here or there.
However, Ukraine is short on ammo right now because EU was slow and US even slower in deciding to keep support up. As a result they have limited opportunities to counter and regain ground when it's lost.
That said though Ukraine has had some strong success in long range drone strikes, including multiple locations in Crimea, oil refineries in Russia, and recently they sunk a Russian warship with drones.
@sargentd: Great and when Putin achieves what he wants in Ukraine and moves onto a NATO country, the US will lose more than money. They will lose lives. How is THAT America First?
Tucker of course, saying this to the backdrop of a country completely under a authoritarian regime, with a one sided narrative that locks up actual journalists, kills people, while Russia floods the internet with troll bots and paid influencers, along with sympathizers.
His primary audience are akin to kids watching a children's presenter on TV. Except they're grown adults with absolutely 0 capacity for critical thinking.
@sargentd: Great and when Putin achieves what he wants in Ukraine and moves onto a NATO country, the US will lose more than money. They will lose lives. How is THAT America First?
@sargentd: Republicans are REFUSING to do anything about the border. Also as Pearl Harbor showed us, isolationism does NOT work.
Reinstate title 42 and remain in Mexico policies like we had under Trump, and get rid of sanctuary cities.
Spin it all you want. Democrats opened the border wide open and everyone knows it. They only helped make it worse.
Those were covid policies that lapsed. GOP isn't interested in any legislation to solve the problem. The work has to come FROM CONGRESS.
Your such a shill for democrats it disgusts me, it just straight up disgusts me. Can't bring yourself to be critical of them in any aspect. Just a straight up deflecting drone. I have no intention in even trying to change your mind, you've proven you don't have one. You just think as your told by them.
Oh well, put your head back in the sand and pretend it's the republicans that aren't being tuff on border security... "It's actually the democrats who are trying to secure the border but those naughty republicans won't let em!"
Nobody is buying that and it's straight up ******* stupid.
It would be like me saying "It's actually the Republicans pushing for abortion access up to 9 months but the democrats wont let them!"
It's just so blantantly stupid, it's insulting to even sugest it to people..
"Man who admitted in court he's a liar not meant to be taken seriously as news, interviews fascist dictator who jails and murders people who don't say what he wants them to."
Log in to comment