politico headlines

[Mikado463]

Because Trump is a once in a lifetime 'character'. No life isn't fair, but then as I've said we were dealing with a polarizing president. He's that way because he blurts out whatever right out in the open, .

You mean like Joe's adlib comments on Putin ?

 

[Dude#1279435]

You mean like Joe's adlib comments on Putin ?

It's not going to be as polarizing because Biden doesn't ignite the flames in.public as Trump does. Doesn't mean it's fair, but when you don't STFU like Trump what did you expect in 2020?

 

[Dude#1279435]

For the third time. It was about the media. The point was not about Trump's loss.
Speaking of media coverage. Some points posted by Majid Rafizadeh. It will be interesting to see how the media portrays this deal for the Biden Administration and how Putin benefits from it.

Biden Admin's Nuclear Deal: "This Isn't Obama's Iran Deal. It's Much, Much Worse."
Submitted by Majid Rafizadeh, board member of Harvard International Business Review.

• "By every indication, the Biden Administration appears to have given away the store... What is more, the deal appears likely to deepen Iran's financial and security relationship with Moscow and Beijing, including through arms sales." — Statement from 49 US Republican Senators, March 14, 2022.
• With the increased flow of funds to the ruling mullahs, do expect an increase across Iran in human rights violations and domestic crackdowns on those who oppose the regime's policies, as hardliners tend to be the ones gaining more power as a result of any lifting of sanctions. Iran's hardliners already control three branches of the government: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.
• Regionally speaking, a nuclear deal will undoubtedly escalate Iran's interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, despite what the advocates of the nuclear deal argue -- just as when then US President Barack Obama predicted that with a nuclear deal, "attitudes will change." They did. For the worse.
• Sanctions relief, as a consequence of a nuclear accord, will most likely finance Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Quds Force (the IRGC branch for extraterritorial operations) and buttress Iran's terrorist proxies, including Lebanon's Hezbollah, Yemen's Houthis, Iraq's Shiite militias, and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
• The worst parts of the new deal are, of course, that it will enable the Iranian regime, repeatedly listed by the US as a state sponsor of terrorism, to have full nuclear weapons capability, an unlimited number of nuclear warheads, and the intercontinental ballistic missile systems with which to deliver them. In addition, as a separate deal, the US will reportedly release the IRGC from the US List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, "in return for a public commitment from Iran to de-escalation in the region" and a promise "not to attack Americans."
• Iran's leaders, for a start, never honored their earlier "commitment," so why would anyone think they would honor this one? In a burst of honesty, though -- and a pretty explicit tip-off -- they stated that they "didn't agree to the U.S. demand and suggested giving the U.S. a private side letter instead."
• Then there is that revealingly narcissistic condition, "not to attack Americans"? Oh, then attacking Saudis, Emiratis, Israelis, Europeans, South Americans and everyone else is just fine? Thanks, Biden.
• Worse, the Iranians were complicit with al-Qaeda in attacking the US on 9/11/2001. So we are rewarding them?
• To top it off, the US State Department just confirmed that Russia and its war-criminal President Vladimir Putin could keep Iran's "excess uranium." (Excess of what?) Seriously? So Putin can use Iran's uranium to threaten bombing his next "Ukraine"?
• One can only assume that just as the region has become relatively more peaceful and stable, the Biden administration would like to destabilize it. After surrendering to the Taliban in Afghanistan and failing to deter Putin from invading Ukraine, has the Biden administration not created enough destabilization? Why would a US president want a legacy of three major destabilizations unless someone was interested in bringing down the West?
• The US proposals -- negotiated for the Americans by Russia of all unimpeachable, trustworthy, above-board advocates -- have been described as: "This Isn't Obama's Iran Deal. It's Much, Much Worse." That sounds about right.

The Biden administration continues to disregard major concerns regarding the Iran nuclear deal, and has reportedly "refused to commit to submit a new Iran deal to the Senate for ratification as a treaty, as per its constitutional obligation."

Of course that was your intention. The memo was released in October. One of the reasons it may have not been effective is because of climate: Trump's interest in Hunter came across as conspiracy to use against Joe in 2020. Hannity pushing the laptop might have backfired since he uses media mob, deep state etc in his language. Do I really believe what the Telegraph has to say? They pushed the Clinton call girl service thing. Truth often isn't as important as appearance. When you have a few hosts over there at Faux described as clowns due to their lack of professionalism..... it probably only made it to the back pages of the NY Times.

 

[SithZedi]

Of course that was your intention. The memo was released in October. One of the reasons it may have not been effective is because of climate: Trump's interest in Hunter came across as conspiracy to use against Joe in 2020. Hannity pushing the laptop might have backfired since he uses media mob, deep state etc in his language. Do I really believe what the Telegraph has to say? They pushed the Clinton call girl service thing. Truth often isn't as important as appearance. When you have a few hosts over there at Faux described as clowns due to their lack of professionalism..... it probably only made it to the back pages of the NY Times.

My intention was straightforward: Media corruption. Don't know what Fox has to say about anything. That's your other obsession and regurgitating media talking points about them.

The Post's article, not "memo" was released at that time. Your reasons for why it was not reported, buried, & spun by the media makes the point. If they were real journalists, they would have reported the story and done their own investigations. As you say, they didn't because of the climate? Seriously? They didn't report it because the candidate they supported was Biden. This is not real journalism. Doesn't that obvious bias concern you at all about the state of the profession in the US? How would the media have reported it if was Don Jr.'s Laptop?

As for Clinton, I am assuming you mean Clinton's relationship with Epstein? Of course you would think there is nothing to comment on there as does the rest of the Media. Nothing in Clinton's background would indicate he has an issue with women?

 

[Dude#1279435]

My intention was straightforward: Media corruption. Don't know what Fox has to say about anything. That's your other obsession and regurgitating media talking points about them.

The Post's article, not "memo" was released at that time. Your reasons for why it was not reported, buried, & spun by the media makes the point. If they were real journalists, they would have reported the story and done their own investigations. As you say, they didn't because of the climate? Seriously? They didn't report it because the candidate they supported was Biden. This is not real journalism. Doesn't that obvious bias concern you at all about the state of the profession in the US? How would the media have reported it if was Don Jr.'s Laptop?

As for Clinton, I am assuming you mean Clinton's relationship with Epstein? Of course you would think there is nothing to comment on there as does the rest of the Media. Nothing in Clinton's background would indicate he has an issue with women?

I know Bill likes women, but who in their right mind is going to scan the headline and believe anything but conspiracy with a delivery service? Or care?)

Tucker/Hannity- two of the biggest ratings getters. The first a propagandist; the second a tabloid journalist. Hannity- well the laptop conspiracy was never going to click because of his reputation, which is the broader point I'm trying to make regarding TV vs print. Few have a reputation for journalism and therefore a pigeonholed into opinion or conspiracy on TV. Who do they have left if people turn to TV first? On the one hand you want the left to report on the left, and if they don't who do you have to report a believable story on the laptop to a wider audience, Hannity or Tucker? I'm not seeing the traction. It's cyclical: you feel marginalized by the left media, and yet deep down all conservatives really want from the right media is to fling more poop by some with the reputation of poop.

 

[Mikado463]

It's not going to be as polarizing because Biden doesn't ignite the flames in.public as Trump does. Doesn't mean it's fair, but when you don't STFU like Trump what did you expect in 2020?

Oh I totally understand that, but don't think for one minute that Joe's handlers don't get a littler nervous when he ventures off the tele-prompter.

 

[SithZedi]

I know Bill likes women, but who in their right mind is going to scan the headline and believe anything but conspiracy with a delivery service? Or care?)

Tucker/Hannity- two of the biggest ratings getters. The first a propagandist; the second a tabloid journalist. Hannity- well the laptop conspiracy was never going to click because of his reputation, which is the broader point I'm trying to make regarding TV vs print. Few have a reputation for journalism and therefore a pigeonholed into opinion or conspiracy on TV. Who do they have left if people turn to TV first? On the one hand you want the left to report on the left, and if they don't who do you have to report a believable story on the laptop to a wider audience, Hannity or Tucker? I'm not seeing the traction. It's cyclical: you feel marginalized by the left media, and yet deep down all conservatives really want from the right media is to fling more poop by some with the reputation of poop.

Don't care about the ratings. The ratings are a concern for their shareholders because that's where the money comes. It's their job to get those ratings = advertising dollars=dividends + capital appreciation.

The left to only report on the left? The job of a journalist is to report on everything, Left, Right, middle, what ever the story happens to be. Not to treat one side of the political spectrum as family and untouchable. You correct that some feel marginalized by the media and politicians, directly lied to, indirectly lied to by omission, propagandised, double standards, et al. Personally, I don't feel marginalized since I concluded long ago what the rules of the game are. It's to protect the small few at the top and make money doing it. Same as it ever was.

I think you might be reaching with what "all conservatives" really want. Most that I have come across just want to be left alone to live the way they wish and to be told the truth so they can make good choices for their families. Then again, you could replace the word conservatives with "leftists" and you would get the same thing.

 

[Mikado463]

Oh I totally understand that, but don't think for one minute that Joe's handlers don't get a littler nervous when he ventures off the tele-prompter.

case in point .........

Biden's off-the-cuff remark on Putin sends shock waves on dramatic final day of trip - CNNPolitics

 

[Dude#1279435]

Don't care about the ratings. The ratings are a concern for their shareholders because that's where the money comes. It's their job to get those ratings = advertising dollars=dividends + capital appreciation.

The left to only report on the left? The job of a journalist is to report on everything, Left, Right, middle, what ever the story happens to be. Not to treat one side of the political spectrum as family and untouchable. You correct that some feel marginalized by the media and politicians, directly lied to, indirectly lied to by omission, propagandised, double standards, et al. Personally, I don't feel marginalized since I concluded long ago what the rules of the game are. It's to protect the small few at the top and make money doing it. Same as it ever was.

I think you might be reaching with what "all conservatives" really want. Most that I have come across just want to be left alone to live the way they wish and to be told the truth so they can make good choices for their families. Then again, you could replace the word conservatives with "leftists" and you would get the same thing.

What I'm saying is you want the right to report on the left, and the left to report on.the left. Replace marginalized with "in the minority" regarding conservative news and schools. I think that's a driving force behind why they're content with flinging as much poop on the screen as possible. Or they don't feel they can articulate conservatism (particularly to the young).

 

[highfigh]

It won't stick.

But the problem is, how will Putin react?

 

[Dude#1279435]

But the problem is, how will Putin react?

I dunno. You tell me.

 

[Dude#1279435]

case in point .........

Biden's off-the-cuff remark on Putin sends shock waves on dramatic final day of trip - CNNPolitics

He's not the answer on Russia. You need to carry a big stick as a warning. Joe doesn't.

 

[SithZedi]

What I'm saying is you want the right to report on the left, and the left to report on.the left. Replace marginalized with "in the minority" regarding conservative news and schools. I think that's a driving force behind why they're content with flinging as much poop on the screen as possible. Or they don't feel they can articulate conservatism (particularly to the young).

The media should, right or left, just accurately report the news, good or bad, right or left. No omissions, no slow leaking stories to benefit any side. The poop flinging from both sides makes money and gets ratings and has been that way since the beginning of the republic. As far as articulating "conservative"or any philosophy, that used to be the job of the parents, community, and educational system. That's a whole other story.

 

[highfigh]

I dunno. You tell me.

Do you actually know what a rhetorical question is?

 

[Dude#1279435]

The media should, right or left, just accurately report the news, good or bad, right or left. No omissions, no slow leaking stories to benefit any side. The poop flinging from both sides makes money and gets ratings and has been that way since the beginning of the republic. As far as articulating "conservative"or any philosophy, that used to be the job of the parents, community, and educational system. That's a whole other story.

I'm not aware of any left reporter that compares to Hannity or Tucker. I also don't see how you can say no slow leaking stories when you just posted the laptop story released in October 2020. There also is no conservative politician going to teeter the delicate balance between teaching a neutral American history and what benefits them. (Nor the other side.) It's best left to a body politic. Or am I aware of parental teaching rights being removed in the home. I guess it's possible, but you'd have to provide evidence.

 

[SithZedi]

I'm not aware of any left reporter that compares to Hannity or Tucker. I also don't see how you can say no slow leaking stories when you just posted the laptop story released in October 2020. There also is no conservative politician going to teeter the delicate balance between teaching a neutral American history and what benefits them. (Nor the other side.) It's best left to a body politic. Or am I aware of parental teaching rights being removed in the home. I guess it's possible, but you'd have to provide evidence.

I think that might be the problem. You think the Fox guys are unique compared to the rest of the Media. Maybe you mean their ratings?
Don't think you are seeing the point on slow leaking stories either. The story broke in Oct 2020 was buried, banned from being forwarded by twitter and only "verified" by the NY Times last week. The media should have reported the story in full when it broke. It would be like reporting the Russian invasion of Ukraine a year later because you favored Russia.
You are not aware of the Parental teaching rights issue? If you want evidence, go and review the main issues in the recent Virginia governors race.

 

[Dude#1279435]

I think that might be the problem. You think the Fox guys are unique compared to the rest of the Media. Maybe you mean their ratings?
Don't think you are seeing the point on slow leaking stories either. The story broke in Oct 2020 was buried, banned from being forwarded by twitter and only "verified" by the NY Times last week. The media should have reported the story in full when it broke. It would be like reporting the Russian invasion of Ukraine a year later because you favored Russia.
You are not aware of the Parental teaching rights issue? If you want evidence, go and review the main issues in the recent Virginia governors race.

Wasn't the laptop story known well before October 2020?

 

[SithZedi]

Wasn't the laptop story known well before October 2020?

What was known before October was the Burmisa relationship with Hunter. The media reported that there was nothing wrong with that relationship. In October 2020, the breaking news in the Post and Fox News was that the FBI had been quietly investigating money laundering evidence on the laptop since late 2019. The NY Post story reported that they finally had access to the emails on the laptop.

 

[Dude#1279435]

What was known before October was the Burmisa relationship with Hunter. The media reported that there was nothing wrong with that relationship. In October 2020, the breaking news in the Post and Fox News was that the FBI had been quietly investigating money laundering evidence on the laptop since late 2019. The NY Post story reported that they finally had access to the emails on the laptop.

At best seems pretty iffy to me.....

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SithZedi]

The Wikipedia page you posted has not been updated with the latest NY Times reporting. That should tell you something about Wikipedia's reliability..

Interesting enough, the last posting on the Wikipedia entry is this which speaks volumes.

In her resignation letter from The New York Times, journalist Bari Weiss, who later founded the Substack newsletter named Common Sense, said "When we're not able to say that Hunter Biden's laptop is a story worth pursuing, the world has gone mad."[94]

If you are still iffy on it, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe this might help. Ask yourself, how would the non Fox media have covered this if Hunter were Don Jr?