Anyone else horrified?

[edwardmurphy]

I think you've answered my question.

When I googled H.R. 5383 there were two general results - links to pages where I could read the bill, and links to stuff like this:

“Under this legislation, the criminals are the victims. Law enforcement is illegitimate,” Carlson said. “It’s racist, just like the country you live in, and the only solution is to get rid of both. America would be better off as a borderless rest area for the world’s worst predators and parasites.”

I read the bill, and based on my reading I don't think that the characterization above is accurate. So did you read H.R. 5383 or did you read some pundit's description of H.R. 5383?

If it's the former then I'm curious about what part you don't like and why. If it's the latter then it perfectly illustrates one of the major problems in America today.

See, what's currently happening is that some Democrats made a suggestion about how to reform our immigration policies (which everyone agrees we ought to do) - in the form of H.R. 5383 - and then the whole American right just freaked the [love] out and started howling about open borders and predators and the end of America.

That's not what's supposed to happen.

What's supposed to happen is that Democrats make a suggestion about how to reform our immigration policies (which everyone agrees we ought to do) - in the form of H.R. 5383 - and the Republicans read it with an eye toward finding common ground, and then everybody sits down to discuss their differences and whether or not they can be reconciled.

There seems to be this idea in the minds of American conservatives that if Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, or even Joe Biden simply has an idea or makes a suggestion it's an existential threat to America as they know it. Guys, you know that there's not much chance of H.R. 5383 making it to the Senate and zero chance of it getting to the President's desk (where it would have been vetoed anyway). It's an opening gambit. The Democrats are trying to haggle. There's no reason to freak out.

[edwardmurphy]

Ed,

Do you think the majority of the Democratic party would agree with that 1956 Republican party platform?

The Democrats are a coalition party, same as the Republicans. The mainstream Dems are socially pretty liberal, but their views on a lot of other issues align very closely with Eisenhower's 1956 platform. Not all of it, but a lot. Here are some things that I pulled from Eisenhower's platform:

the purpose of the Republican Party is to establish and maintain a peaceful world and build at home a dynamic prosperity in which every citizen fairly shares.

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.

We have balanced the budget. We believe and will continue to prove that thrift, prudence and a sensible respect for living within income applies as surely to the management of our Government's budget as it does to the family budget.

The individual is of supreme importance.

The spirit of our people is the strength of our nation.

America does not prosper unless all Americans prosper.

Government must have a heart as well as a head.

Courage in principle, cooperation in practice make freedom positive.

The record of performance of the Republican Administration on behalf of our working men and women goes still further. The Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen's compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal employees.

In addition, the Eisenhower Administration has enforced more vigorously and effectively than ever before, the laws which protect the working standards of our people.

Workers have benefited by the progress which has been made in carrying out the programs and principles set forth in the 1952 Republican platform. All workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions.

Furthermore, the process of free collective bargaining has been strengthened by the insistence of this Administration that labor and management settle their differences at the bargaining table without the intervention of the Government. This policy has brought to our country an unprecedented period of labor-management peace and understanding.

The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will:

Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;

Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;

Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;

Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits;

Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;

Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;

Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;

Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;

Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment;

The Republican Party believes that the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of the people is as important as their economic health. It will continue to support this conviction with vigorous action.

Republican action created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as the first new Federal department in 40 years, to raise the continuing consideration of these problems for the first time to the highest council of Government, the President's Cabinet.

We have strengthened the Food and Drug Administration, and we have increased the vocational rehabilitation program to enable a larger number of the disabled to return to satisfying activity.

We have supported measures that have made more housing available than ever before in history, reduced urban slums in local-federal partnership, stimulated record home ownership, and authorized additional low-rent public housing.

We initiated the first flood insurance program in history under Government sponsorship in cooperation with private enterprise.

We shall continue to seek extension and perfection of a sound social security system.

We pledge close cooperation with State, local and private agencies to reduce the ghastly toll of fatalities on the Nation's highways.

District of Columbia.
We favor self-government, national suffrage and representation in the Congress of the United States for residents of the District of Columbia.

Equal Rights.
We recommend to Congress the submission of a constitutional amendment providing equal rights for men and women.

The Republican Party has unequivocally recognized that the supreme law of the land is embodied in the Constitution, which guarantees to all people the blessings of liberty, due process and equal protection of the laws. It confers upon all native-born and naturalized citizens not only citizenship in the State where the individual resides but citizenship of the United States as well. This is an unqualified right, regardless of race, creed or color.

The Republican Party supports an immigration policy which is in keeping with the traditions of America in providing a haven for oppressed peoples, and which is based on equality of treatment, freedom from implications of discrimination between racial, nationality and religious groups, and flexible enough to conform to changing needs and conditions.

We believe that such a policy serves our self-interest, reflects our responsibility for world leadership and develops maximum cooperation with other nations in resolving problems in this area.

We support the President's program submitted to the 84th Congress to carry out needed modifications in existing law and to take such further steps as may be necessary to carry out our traditional policy.

In that concept, this Republican Administration sponsored the Refugee Relief Act to provide asylum for thousands of refugees, expellees and displaced persons, and undertook in the face of Democrat opposition to correct the inequities in existing law and to bring our immigration policies in line with the dynamic needs of the country and principles of equity and justice.

We believe also that the Congress should consider the extension of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 in resolving this difficult refugee problem which resulted from world conflict. To all this we give our wholehearted support.

Scan through that document and you'll see strong support for organized labor, the Equal Rights Amendment, the expansion of the safety net, the EPA, the US as a haven for oppressed refugees, representation for DC, worker protection...

Yeah, most Democrats would get behind all of that. The progressive wing would want to take things further, but there's plenty there that they'd like.

Heck even James Carville, a llife-long Democrat and self-professed liberal said today the democratic party swung too far left. He's terrified at the prospect.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... s-carville

Carville isn't saying that the Dems are too liberal, period, he's saying that the Dems are too liberal to appeal to the people they'll need to win over in order to retake the Senate. Big difference.

He might be right. The Democrats are primarily an urban party so they control a lot less territory despite having more people. That means the GOP has a natural advantage in the Senate. Since Mitch McConnell has decided that Democrats don't get to appoint judges or enact legislation there's no possible way for the Dems to accomplish a single, solitary thing without retaking the entire Congress. Mitch will brook no compromise, no Democratic nominations will make it out of committee, and the popularity of Democratic proposals will mean nothing. That's just reality. No Democratic President will be permitted to govern as long as Mitch McConnell is Senate Majority Leader.

The problem then, is that all of the young, fire breathing progressives out there want change. They're mad as hell. Their grandparents could get a union factory job straight out of high school, make enough money to support a family, and retire with a generous pension. Their parents were able to work their way through college and then get jobs. This generation is struggling with massive college debt, still living at home because they can't afford to move out on their own, and working 3 part time jobs because suddenly it's a gig economy and everybody is a subcontractor with no benefits. They want big changes right now. They want universal healthcare. They want serious action on climate change. They want a more just and equitable distribution of wealth. They want the feeling of safety, security, and limitless opportunity that their parents and grandparents took for granted. They want the old guys - the guys who are going to be dead in 20 years anyway - to sit down, shut up, and let a new generation make the country they want to live in.

Meanwhile, there are a lot of Americans who don't see things the way that the kids do and aren't really inclined to listen to them or take them seriously. Carville knows that the Democrats have to appeal to those people.

Beyond that, the Dems also need to appeal to people who like some of their ideas but wouldn't pass an ideological purity test - people who couldn't give a [poop] about transgender rights but want strong unions, people who are pro-life but know that supply side economics is a scam, gun owners who accept the reality of climate change, and so forth. Carville knows that the Dems could get some of those people if they used welcoming language and steered clear of ideas that most Americans have been taught to fear. Carville's point is that, yes, Pete, there's plenty of room in the tent for pro-life moderates, everybody should shut up about free college tuition, nobody better say anything that even hints at open borders, and for Christ's sake, Bernie, stop saying that you're a socialist!

[edwardmurphy]

Rick Scott is proposing a constitutional amendment to raise the impeachment threshold in the house from simple majority to 3/5th. This way some measure of bipartisanship is somewhat assured before impeachment is voted on.

I read it. I don't support it. It's a partisan political ploy which, if implemented, would further weaken Congressional oversight. It's just Scott virtue signalling and validating Trump's sense of victimhood.

You're not going to agree with me on this, but I saw the evidence and Trump did it. Impeachment was warranted. Scott's claim that the process needs to have some bipartisan backing is a joke. If there had been a 3/5 majority required then Trump would still have done it, but the House wouldn't have impeached him.

The Founder's intent, as I understand it, was that the House have the sole power of impeachment. If they want to change their rules to make it a 3/5 majority then more power to them, but personally I think a simple majority is fine. Trump's impeachment wasn't frivolous and neither was Clinton's. Nixon apparently did nothing wrong since Trump did all of the same things that Nixon did, only more, and was acquitted. Still, Watergate seems like it at least merited an investigation. And other than those three we haven't had an impeachment since 1868. If impeachment becomes commonplace maybe we should revisit that 3/5 thing, but 3 times in the last 45 years (counting Nixon even though he really wasn't) isn't all that much.

- I propose a similar amendment to make the senate vote for conviction the same, 3/5th instead of 2/3rd

I'm fine with the 2/3 majority. I think that there should be a high bar for removing a sitting President (or judge or whatever). The part that infuriates me is the cover-up. Trump obstructed the House investigation and then the Senate declined to allow the evidence that Trump blocked during the inquiry to come to light during the trial.

Impeachment is both a legal and a political process. If the Senate GOP judged that there wasn't enough voter support for removing the President or simply made the political calculation that it was in their interest to acquit then fine, whatever. That's politics. I think they're hypocritical, gutless suck-ups, but they can vote how they see fit and then sell it to their constituents as best they can.

But the Senate also had a responsibility to the people that they represent to do the most thorough hearing possible. If new information comes to light in a criminal trial then nobody says "Too late - this is a trial and we don't investigate here," they introduce it into evidence and use it to inform their decision. The goal of both the investigation and the trial should be to learn the truth and then communicate that truth to the voters. The Senate GOP utterly failed in their duty. That enrages me.

- Another idea, some kind of an impeachment process reform bill that will clearly define the following:

• 1. The respective roles of the house and senate. The house does the investigation, subpoenas, evidence gathering and so forth. The senate tries the case and renders a verdict

• 2. Expedited redress in the courts (this is not unprecedented, though I forget the case specifics)

• 3. Guaranteed due process, the president's legal counsel is involved every step of the way

A bill wouldn't do it. It would need to be a Constitutional amendment.

The first one is kind of based on the presumption that the House asked the Senate to do investigative work. They didn't. They asked the Senate to allow the testimony John Bolton to testify after Bolton said he'd be willing to do so. Anyway, I actually think that the impeachment managers and the President's counsel should have the right to call witnesses if new information arises. Get it all out in the open. No cover-ups.

For number two, I disagree. I think that the expectation should be that if the House subpoenas a document or witness the President can either invoke executive privilege or respect the subpoena. I'm fine with the Courts being able to weigh in on whether or not executive privilege is appropriate if there's a dispute, but that's it. The Constitution gives the House the power to investigate the President and that settles the matter.

I disagree with number three as well. That stuff about due process during the investigation is complete nonsense. Nobody gets to insert their legal team into an ongoing investigation. No President has ever been removed from office by impeachment. There's no need to beef up their ability to defend themselves by giving them an inside man to interfere with the investigative process. Trump had counsel during the House impeachment hearing and the Senate trial. That's more than enough.

I'm really frustrated right now, but I don't think that the process is the problem. The problem is that Mitch McConnell worked closely with the President to try and minimize the damage from the impeachment, and that's not his job. The Senate is supposed to check the President's power. Their role in the trial was oversight. Despite that fact, weeks before the trial McConnell said the following:

“I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There’s not anything judicial about it. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I’m not impartial about this at all.”

And immediately before the trial he took the following oath:

“I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

McConnell flagrantly violated his oath and his duty to uphold the Constitution. Unfortunately I'm not sure what we can do about that, other than elect better leaders.

[Byblos]

I think you've answered my question.

When I googled H.R. 5383 there were two general results - links to pages where I could read the bill, and links to stuff like this:

“Under this legislation, the criminals are the victims. Law enforcement is illegitimate,” Carlson said. “It’s racist, just like the country you live in, and the only solution is to get rid of both. America would be better off as a borderless rest area for the world’s worst predators and parasites.”

I read the bill, and based on my reading I don't think that the characterization above is accurate. So did you read H.R. 5383 or did you read some pundit's description of H.R. 5383? If it's the former then I'm curious about what part you don't like and why. If it's the latter then it perfectly illustrates one of the major problems in America today.

No Ed, I just listen to so-called conservative pundits and let them influence my worldview without any regard or research into the subject matter.

Seriously, get off it. It's very tiresome to have to continuously defend the source of our beliefs. But considering the cavalier manner in which you're defending the bill tells me more about where you actually stand, even by 1956 Republican-platform standards. You are so far left of conservatism as it is today that it would not be a mischaracterization at all to label you a far leftist from where I stand.

See, what's currently happening is that some Democrats made a suggestion about how to reform our immigration policies (which everyone agrees we ought to do) - in the form of H.R. 5383 - and then the whole American right just freaked the [love] out and started howling about open borders and predators and the end of America.

That's not what's supposed to happen.

What's supposed to happen is that Democrats make a suggestion about how to reform our immigration policies (which everyone agrees we ought to do) - in the form of H.R. 5383 - and the Republicans read it with an eye toward finding common ground, and then everybody sits down to discuss their differences and whether or not they can be reconciled.

There seems to be this idea in the minds of American conservatives that if Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, or even Joe Biden simply has an idea or makes a suggestion it's an existential threat to America as they know it. Guys, you know that there's not much chance of H.R. 5383 making it to the Senate and zero chance of it getting to the President's desk (where it would have been vetoed anyway). It's an opening gambit. The Democrats are trying to haggle. There's no reason to freak out.

Who's freaking out? I'm just pointing out this is hardly an outlier. 44 congressional democrats proposed this bill. 44 out of 232, that's almost 20%. If there were a democratic majority in the senate and a democratic president (and thank God there isn't), I have no doubt this bill will be fast-tracked into law.

In any case, look, really, I don't need to convince you where you stand, left, right, or center, but I have more than I need to know where I stand vis-a-vis your position. I look left and you are in the distance. In case you haven't noticed, it ain't 1956 any more.

[Byblos]

Rick Scott is proposing a constitutional amendment to raise the impeachment threshold in the house from simple majority to 3/5th. This way some measure of bipartisanship is somewhat assured before impeachment is voted on.

I read it. I don't support it. It's a partisan political ploy which, if implemented, would further weaken Congressional oversight. It's just Scott virtue signalling and validating Trump's sense of victimhood.

You're not going to agree with me on this, but I saw the evidence and Trump did it. Impeachment was warranted. Scott's claim that the process needs to have some bipartisan backing is a joke. If there had been a 3/5 majority required then Trump would still have done it, but the House wouldn't have impeached him.

The Founder's intent, as I understand it, was that the House have the sole power of impeachment. If they want to change their rules to make it a 3/5 majority then more power to them, but personally I think a simple majority is fine. Trump's impeachment wasn't frivolous and neither was Clinton's. Nixon apparently did nothing wrong since Trump did all of the same things that Nixon did, only more, and was acquitted. Still, Watergate seems like it at least merited an investigation. And other than those three we haven't had an impeachment since 1868. If impeachment becomes commonplace maybe we should revisit that 3/5 thing, but 3 times in the last 45 years (counting Nixon even though he really wasn't) isn't all that much.

- I propose a similar amendment to make the senate vote for conviction the same, 3/5th instead of 2/3rd

I'm fine with the 2/3 majority. I think that there should be a high bar for removing a sitting President (or judge or whatever). The part that infuriates me is the cover-up. Trump obstructed the House investigation and then the Senate declined to allow the evidence that Trump blocked during the inquiry to come to light during the trial.

Impeachment is both a legal and a political process. If the Senate GOP judged that there wasn't enough voter support for removing the President or simply made the political calculation that it was in their interest to acquit then fine, whatever. That's politics. I think they're hypocritical, gutless suck-ups, but they can vote how they see fit and then sell it to their constituents as best they can.

But the Senate also had a responsibility to the people that they represent to do the most thorough hearing possible. If new information comes to light in a criminal trial then nobody says "Too late - this is a trial and we don't investigate here," they introduce it into evidence and use it to inform their decision. The goal of both the investigation and the trial should be to learn the truth and then communicate that truth to the voters. The Senate GOP utterly failed in their duty. That enrages me.

- Another idea, some kind of an impeachment process reform bill that will clearly define the following:

• 1. The respective roles of the house and senate. The house does the investigation, subpoenas, evidence gathering and so forth. The senate tries the case and renders a verdict

• 2. Expedited redress in the courts (this is not unprecedented, though I forget the case specifics)

• 3. Guaranteed due process, the president's legal counsel is involved every step of the way

A bill wouldn't do it. It would need to be a Constitutional amendment.

The first one is kind of based on the presumption that the House asked the Senate to do investigative work. They didn't. They asked the Senate to allow the testimony John Bolton to testify after Bolton said he'd be willing to do so. Anyway, I actually think that the impeachment managers and the President's counsel should have the right to call witnesses if new information arises. Get it all out in the open. No cover-ups.

For number two, I disagree. I think that the expectation should be that if the House subpoenas a document or witness the President can either invoke executive privilege or respect the subpoena. I'm fine with the Courts being able to weigh in on whether or not executive privilege is appropriate if there's a dispute, but that's it. The Constitution gives the House the power to investigate the President and that settles the matter.

I disagree with number three as well. That stuff about due process during the investigation is complete nonsense. Nobody gets to insert their legal team into an ongoing investigation. No President has ever been removed from office by impeachment. There's no need to beef up their ability to defend themselves by giving them an inside man to interfere with the investigative process. Trump had counsel during the House impeachment hearing and the Senate trial. That's more than enough.

I'm really frustrated right now, but I don't think that the process is the problem. The problem is that Mitch McConnell worked closely with the President to try and minimize the damage from the impeachment, and that's not his job. The Senate is supposed to check the President's power. Their role in the trial was oversight. Despite that fact, weeks before the trial McConnell said the following:

“I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There’s not anything judicial about it. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I’m not impartial about this at all.”

And immediately before the trial he took the following oath:

“I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

McConnell flagrantly violated his oath and his duty to uphold the Constitution. Unfortunately I'm not sure what we can do about that, other than elect better leaders.

Okie dokie. Oh well, I tried.

[edwardmurphy]

No Ed, I just listen to so-called conservative pundits and let them influence my worldview without any regard or research into the subject matter.

You didn't give me anything to work with. If there's a specific line or series of lines then feel free to post them and we can talk about it. All you said was that when I said "nothing jumps out at me" you considered the conversation to be over.

But considering the cavalier manner in which you're defending the bill tells me more about where you actually stand...

Cavalier?

I said that nothing in the bill jumped out at me, Tucker Carlson's description of the bill seemed inaccurate, it had no chance of passing, and it was an opening gambit in the discussion that the two parties should be having. Oh, and that immigration reform is generally agreed to be necessary.

Where's my cavalier defense? Where's any kind of defense?

Who's freaking out? I'm just pointing out this is hardly an outlier. 44 congressional democrats proposed this bill. 44 out of 232, that's almost 20%. If there were a democratic majority in the senate and a democratic president (and thank God there isn't), I have no doubt this bill will be fast-tracked into law.

The right wing media is freaking out. I quoted them. According to Tucker Carlson the bill would do no less than completely destroy America.

I haven't seen you freak out, but I also haven't seen you make any specific statements about what you personally object to in the bill. Tell me what you don't like and I'll look at it and share my thoughts. But until you actually tell me something I have no information.

And frankly, saying that when I said "nothing jumps out at me" it told you all you needed to know was insulting and dismissive.

In case you haven't noticed, it ain't 1956 any more.

What decade do you imagine Trump is looking back to when he talks about making America great again? What do you think that those angry white guys are yearning to return to? I doubt it's hippies, disco, cocaine, grunge, or millenials. My guess is that it's I Like Ike, Father Knows Best, Mayberry, jobs right out of high school, stay at home moms, homosexuality was a crime, and life was gosh golly gee shucks simple. In other words, Trump has his base yearning for a rose-tinted recollection of the 1950s. And that's what the GOP looked like back then.

[edwardmurphy]

Okie dokie. Oh well, I tried.

Did you, though?

Everything that you wrote included the underlying assumption that the Republican criticisms of the Trump's impeachment were valid and needed to be addressed. I disagree completely. Most of it was just gaslighting. Besides, I did give you one proposal.

I feel that the impeachment managers and the defense counsel should both have the right to present new evidence during the trial.

[Byblos]

Okie dokie. Oh well, I tried.

Did you, though?

I did. Too bad you not only did not see it, here you are questioning its sincerity, which makes it very difficult to converse with you.

Everything that you wrote included the underlying assumption that the Republican criticisms of the Trump's impeachment were valid and needed to be addressed. I disagree completely. Most of it was just gaslighting. Besides, I did give you one proposal.

I feel that the impeachment managers and the defense counsel should both have the right to present new evidence during the trial.

I was hoping we can quickly come to a basic agreement on an impeachment framework going forward, not looking back. Clearly we are so far apart on what transpired that's it's really not worth the effort I need to put into this to see it thru until we do (if ever).

[PaulSacramento]

Sign of the times:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/480530-ireland ... blishment/

Shock election results in Germany and Ireland are signs of a political earthquake that rumbles on across Europe and with more polls penned in for this year, the voter upsets will roll on much to the dismay of the establishment.

The political tremors rumble on in Germany after the main governing party lost its leader and future chancellor Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer amid the self-flagellation of an AfD-assisted win for the CDU in a regional German vote.

Elsewhere, Ireland’s general election resulted in the previously unthought of scenario of Sinn Féin (which started its life as the political wing of the paramilitary IRA) topping the poll.

Both incidents are part of a massive seismic shift that has hit politics in the Western world and shows no sign of easing, and while the career politicians and their pals sit around and scratch their heads, puzzling over what went wrong and why they didn’t see it, they fail to acknowledge one simple truth that every voter knows.

The problem is them.

[edwardmurphy]

I guess what throws me is how frequently I hear western conservatives repeating Russian propaganda. That's an opinion piece from a publication owned and controlled by the Russian government. It's spin from a foreign power whose main goal is to damage and weaken the West - to drive allied countries apart, to drive wedges between citizens within the Western democracies, and to destroy confidence in Western governments and institutions.

I just don't get it...

[Stu]

I guess what throws me is how frequently I hear western conservatives repeating Russian propaganda. That's an opinion piece from a publication owned and controlled by the Russian government. It's spin from a foreign power whose main goal is to damage and weaken the West - to drive allied countries apart, to drive wedges between citizens within the Western democracies, and to destroy confidence in Western governments and institutions.

I just don't get it...

You mean like CNN and NYT and their clones are Democratic Party propaganda? Yeah it's a tricky line you have to walk. One has to get your news from multiple sources or you'll find yourself in an echo chamber.

[Byblos]

I guess what throws me is how frequently I hear western conservatives repeating Russian propaganda. That's an opinion piece from a publication owned and controlled by the Russian government. It's spin from a foreign power whose main goal is to damage and weaken the West - to drive allied countries apart, to drive wedges between citizens within the Western democracies, and to destroy confidence in Western governments and institutions.

I just don't get it...

You mean like CNN and NYT and their clones are Democratic Party propaganda? Yeah it's a tricky line you have to walk. One has to get your news from multiple sources or you'll find yourself in an echo chamber.

That's why I only rely on fair and balanced sources.

[DBowling]

I guess what throws me is how frequently I hear western conservatives repeating Russian propaganda. That's an opinion piece from a publication owned and controlled by the Russian government. It's spin from a foreign power whose main goal is to damage and weaken the West - to drive allied countries apart, to drive wedges between citizens within the Western democracies, and to destroy confidence in Western governments and institutions.

I just don't get it...

You mean like CNN and NYT and their clones are Democratic Party propaganda? Yeah it's a tricky line you have to walk. One has to get your news from multiple sources or you'll find yourself in an echo chamber.

That's why I only rely on fair and balanced sources.

Unfortunately sources that claim to be "fair and balanced" are also involved in propagating Putin's propaganda and misinformation.
So allegedly "fair and balanced" sources need to be fact checked too.

[Byblos]

I guess what throws me is how frequently I hear western conservatives repeating Russian propaganda. That's an opinion piece from a publication owned and controlled by the Russian government. It's spin from a foreign power whose main goal is to damage and weaken the West - to drive allied countries apart, to drive wedges between citizens within the Western democracies, and to destroy confidence in Western governments and institutions.

I just don't get it...

You mean like CNN and NYT and their clones are Democratic Party propaganda? Yeah it's a tricky line you have to walk. One has to get your news from multiple sources or you'll find yourself in an echo chamber.

That's why I only rely on fair and balanced sources.

Unfortunately sources that claim to be "fair and balanced" are also involved in propagating Putin's propaganda and misinformation.
So allegedly "fair and balanced" sources need to be fact checked too.

Of course, you and Ed don't agree with it, it must be a Russian outfit. Whatever,

Dude, you do know you sound leftier than Ed, don't you? If that were even possible.

[edwardmurphy]

Of course, you and Ed don't agree with it, it must be a Russian outfit. Whatever,

RT is a Russian outfit because it's owned by the Russian government. That's not a difficult claim to fact check.

Dude, you do know you sound leftier than Ed, don't you? If that were even possible.

I don't even know how to respond to this stuff anymore. It's like you're in a war against reality.