7 times democrat news organizations said Ukraine interfered with U.S. elections...

[Butch_Coolidge]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wapasha]

So...now that they are moving again on the coup......here are 7 times the democrat news organizations claimed the Ukraine interfered with the U.S. elections...

Nolte: 7 Times the Media Reported Ukraine Meddled in the 2016 Election

The proof is below:

Politico: Jan 11, 2017

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

CNN: July 12, 2017

But multiple Democratic sources said that a DNC contractor, whose work included organizing political events for Ukranian-Americans, did tell DNC operatives that Ukrainian officials would be willing to deliver damaging information on Trump’s campaign and, most notably, Paul Manafort, his then-campaign head who has previously advised Viktor Yanukovych, the former Ukrainian President who has close ties to Moscow.

CBS: July 13, 2017

It wasn’t so much the Clinton campaign, per se, but a Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign.

That operative’s name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party.

…

Chalupa continued her research into Manafort and his ties to Russia, an issue that would dog Manafort until he resigned a few months later. And part of that research involved working with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington and officials in Kiev. Ukraine was worried about a Trump administration cozying up to Moscow, as Russia invaded and seized territory from Ukraine shortly after Yankukovych’s ouster.

…

Is it normal for campaigns to work with foreign governments like this?

No.

…

t’s deeply unusual for an American campaign to be working with foreign assets like this, regardless of whether it’s Ukraine or Russia.

New York Times: December 12, 2018

Ukraine Court Rules Manafort Disclosure Caused ‘Meddling’ in U.S. Election

A court in Ukraine has ruled that officials in the country violated the law by revealing, during the 2016 presidential election in the United States, details of suspected illegal payments to Paul Manafort.

In 2016, while Mr. Manafort was chairman of the Trump campaign, anti-corruption prosecutors in Ukraine disclosed that a pro-Russian political party had earmarked payments for Mr. Manafort from an illegal slush fund. Mr. Manafort resigned from the campaign a week later.

The court’s ruling that what the prosecutors did was illegal comes as the Ukrainian government, which is deeply reliant on the United States for financial and military aid, has sought to distance itself from matters related to the special counsel’s investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential race.

…

The Kiev District Administrative Court, in a statement issued Wednesday, said that Artem Sytnik, the head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, the agency that had released information about the payments, had violated the law. The court’s statement said this violation “resulted in meddling in the electoral process of the United States in 2016 and damaged the national interests of Ukraine.”

Daily Beast: December 12, 2018

Two Ukrainian officials meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by leaking a secret ledger showing $12.7 million in payments between Ukraine’s ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych and Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a Ukrainian court said Wednesday.

The Kyiv district court ruled that National Anti-Corruption Bureau Director Artem Sytnyk and legislator Serhiy Leshchenko broke the law by revealing that Manafort’s name and signature appeared on the ledger.

The disclosure “led to interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine as a state,” the court said.

Newsweek: December 12, 2018

Two Ukrainian officials interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election when they revealed details of illegal cash payments worth millions of dollars from the country’s former ruling party, the Party of Regions, to President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, a court in the country’s capital, Kiev, determined on Wednesday.

Artem Sytnyk, director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, and Serhiy Leshchenko, a parliamentarian who was once an investigative reporter, played a central role in finding and publishing secret records, nicknamed the “black ledger,” with information about $12.7 million of undisclosed cash payments made by Ukraine’s ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych to Manafort.

The Week: January 11, 2017

Hillary Clinton also got foreign help in the election — from Ukraine

Ukrainian government officials helped boost Hillary Clinton and worked to sabotage Donald Trump’s political campaign during the 2016 election, a Politico investigation has found. In one instance, a Ukrainian-American operative consulting with the Democratic National Committee even had a hand in exposing Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s ties to Russia, which eventually resulted in his ousting from the Trump campaign.

This is how breathlessly and shamelessly corrupt the media are…

The Trump-haters will pretend ignorance, by spinning this into a wild conspiracy narrative that claims the official Ukraine government policy was to meddle in the US elections, to benefit Hilary, and harm Trump. I don't see anyone claiming it was Ukraine government policy to interfere. Individuals within the Ukraine government did interfere.

As if that makes it okay if the DNC and Fusion GPS only worked with people inside the Ukraine government to provide dirt on the Trump campaign, as long as it was never official Ukraine government policy.

 

[Wapasha]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BTW, did our US Congress write conditions into the $1 billion Ukraine foreign aid bill, that Ukraine must fire a Ukraine prosecutor in the middle of a criminal investigation of Hunter Biden's former boss, or they would not get the aid money???Where did Biden derive that power from???

Does Obama signing a foreign aid bill give Joe Biden the power to blackmail that government? Does it give Biden the power and to meddle in the internal criminal investigations of other nations, just because the President put Biden in charge of the diplomatic relations with that nation?

Someone needs to inform Pence of these new VP powers, cuz he may not be aware that they exist.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

If capitalism and making money.....and not politics......were their driving force?????? Why didn't ABC (or whichever one) run the Epstein story that reporter was caught on hot mike talking about...…...that story alone would have made them rich and ratings thru the roof.

Good point, in hindsight -- it would indeed have scored them a spike IF it got legs when they would have brought it out. Of course, once the story is out, IF it gets legs, then everybody who touches it gets their own spike, which is why they start stretching.

The network exec who reportedly told the reporter "nobody knows who he is" has a point though. I never heard of the guy until the avalanche of stories and mythologies, which required a first step of explaining who you're talking about and why you should care. That's always an uphill climb, and maybe they didn't want to take that climb on. Maybe they misjudged what would sell and what wouldn't.

BULLSHIT

BULLSHIT.

I see your bullshit and raise you a font point. Anything you can do I can do bigger.

True enough that Epstein hadn't been much of a household name......until it was...…..and why was it?????


Because he was a high profile pedophile, and human trafficker with high profile connections......that would make news anyday, anywhere.

That's in no way guaranteed. It's easy to look back in hindsight (he said redundantly) and declare its story legs were inevitable but were they? Is it a story that affects anybody outside the circle of the predator and his victims? No. Outside the circle all it's worth is a chance for uninvolved bystanders to click their tongues at from the sidelines. Personally I have way better things to do. That other guy Weinstein --- the guy nobody pronounces his name right ---- same thing. Never heard of him, has absolute zero impact on me, who cares. So if it were up to me to decide "is this a story", in either case I can't find a way to say it is. If I'm a news editor my next question is "what ELSE do we have?".

And my whole point was that it is politics that drive the media, which you've claimed several times in this thread it's profits. IF it were profits via ratings & viewership, then they'd spend as much time reporting stories such as Epstein as they do about impeaching a duly elected President

Yes they would ---- IF IT SELLS. And I think they have. Just a question of whether there are enough tongue-clickers to milk. And they CLEARLY ALREADY DO that with any number of other who-cares stories about other people's personal lives that have zero impact on you and me.

Also ------ what other kind of President but a "duly elected" one could be impeached? Gotcha.

Of course the story would sell, cause everyone (but you of course) wants to know more about it...….but here in the US, it's getting swept under the rug. Reporters get paid to write news-worthy stories. And the extent of Epstein & his cohorts crimes are newsworthy......especially to the victims & their families.

Maybe if the media did give this story enough effort, it might quiet those rumors of 'Epstein didn't kill himself' that is so prevailant

 

[charwin95]

So...now that they are moving again on the coup......here are 7 times the democrat news organizations claimed the Ukraine interfered with the U.S. elections...

Nolte: 7 Times the Media Reported Ukraine Meddled in the 2016 Election

The proof is below:

Politico: Jan 11, 2017

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

CNN: July 12, 2017

But multiple Democratic sources said that a DNC contractor, whose work included organizing political events for Ukranian-Americans, did tell DNC operatives that Ukrainian officials would be willing to deliver damaging information on Trump’s campaign and, most notably, Paul Manafort, his then-campaign head who has previously advised Viktor Yanukovych, the former Ukrainian President who has close ties to Moscow.

CBS: July 13, 2017

It wasn’t so much the Clinton campaign, per se, but a Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign.

That operative’s name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party.

…

Chalupa continued her research into Manafort and his ties to Russia, an issue that would dog Manafort until he resigned a few months later. And part of that research involved working with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington and officials in Kiev. Ukraine was worried about a Trump administration cozying up to Moscow, as Russia invaded and seized territory from Ukraine shortly after Yankukovych’s ouster.

…

Is it normal for campaigns to work with foreign governments like this?

No.

…

t’s deeply unusual for an American campaign to be working with foreign assets like this, regardless of whether it’s Ukraine or Russia.

New York Times: December 12, 2018

Ukraine Court Rules Manafort Disclosure Caused ‘Meddling’ in U.S. Election

A court in Ukraine has ruled that officials in the country violated the law by revealing, during the 2016 presidential election in the United States, details of suspected illegal payments to Paul Manafort.

In 2016, while Mr. Manafort was chairman of the Trump campaign, anti-corruption prosecutors in Ukraine disclosed that a pro-Russian political party had earmarked payments for Mr. Manafort from an illegal slush fund. Mr. Manafort resigned from the campaign a week later.

The court’s ruling that what the prosecutors did was illegal comes as the Ukrainian government, which is deeply reliant on the United States for financial and military aid, has sought to distance itself from matters related to the special counsel’s investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential race.

…

The Kiev District Administrative Court, in a statement issued Wednesday, said that Artem Sytnik, the head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, the agency that had released information about the payments, had violated the law. The court’s statement said this violation “resulted in meddling in the electoral process of the United States in 2016 and damaged the national interests of Ukraine.”

Daily Beast: December 12, 2018

Two Ukrainian officials meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by leaking a secret ledger showing $12.7 million in payments between Ukraine’s ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych and Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a Ukrainian court said Wednesday.

The Kyiv district court ruled that National Anti-Corruption Bureau Director Artem Sytnyk and legislator Serhiy Leshchenko broke the law by revealing that Manafort’s name and signature appeared on the ledger.

The disclosure “led to interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine as a state,” the court said.

Newsweek: December 12, 2018

Two Ukrainian officials interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election when they revealed details of illegal cash payments worth millions of dollars from the country’s former ruling party, the Party of Regions, to President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, a court in the country’s capital, Kiev, determined on Wednesday.

Artem Sytnyk, director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, and Serhiy Leshchenko, a parliamentarian who was once an investigative reporter, played a central role in finding and publishing secret records, nicknamed the “black ledger,” with information about $12.7 million of undisclosed cash payments made by Ukraine’s ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych to Manafort.

The Week: January 11, 2017

Hillary Clinton also got foreign help in the election — from Ukraine

Ukrainian government officials helped boost Hillary Clinton and worked to sabotage Donald Trump’s political campaign during the 2016 election, a Politico investigation has found. In one instance, a Ukrainian-American operative consulting with the Democratic National Committee even had a hand in exposing Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s ties to Russia, which eventually resulted in his ousting from the Trump campaign.

This is how breathlessly and shamelessly corrupt the media are…

Sorted and cherry pick by Breitbart a well known media source of disinformation. WTF.

 

[Pogo]

If capitalism and making money.....and not politics......were their driving force?????? Why didn't ABC (or whichever one) run the Epstein story that reporter was caught on hot mike talking about...…...that story alone would have made them rich and ratings thru the roof.

Good point, in hindsight -- it would indeed have scored them a spike IF it got legs when they would have brought it out. Of course, once the story is out, IF it gets legs, then everybody who touches it gets their own spike, which is why they start stretching.

The network exec who reportedly told the reporter "nobody knows who he is" has a point though. I never heard of the guy until the avalanche of stories and mythologies, which required a first step of explaining who you're talking about and why you should care. That's always an uphill climb, and maybe they didn't want to take that climb on. Maybe they misjudged what would sell and what wouldn't.

BULLSHIT

BULLSHIT.

I see your bullshit and raise you a font point. Anything you can do I can do bigger.

True enough that Epstein hadn't been much of a household name......until it was...…..and why was it?????


Because he was a high profile pedophile, and human trafficker with high profile connections......that would make news anyday, anywhere.

That's in no way guaranteed. It's easy to look back in hindsight (he said redundantly) and declare its story legs were inevitable but were they? Is it a story that affects anybody outside the circle of the predator and his victims? No. Outside the circle all it's worth is a chance for uninvolved bystanders to click their tongues at from the sidelines. Personally I have way better things to do. That other guy Weinstein --- the guy nobody pronounces his name right ---- same thing. Never heard of him, has absolute zero impact on me, who cares. So if it were up to me to decide "is this a story", in either case I can't find a way to say it is. If I'm a news editor my next question is "what ELSE do we have?".

And my whole point was that it is politics that drive the media, which you've claimed several times in this thread it's profits. IF it were profits via ratings & viewership, then they'd spend as much time reporting stories such as Epstein as they do about impeaching a duly elected President

Yes they would ---- IF IT SELLS. And I think they have. Just a question of whether there are enough tongue-clickers to milk. And they CLEARLY ALREADY DO that with any number of other who-cares stories about other people's personal lives that have zero impact on you and me.

Also ------ what other kind of President but a "duly elected" one could be impeached? Gotcha.

Of course the story would sell, cause everyone (but you of course) wants to know more about it...….but here in the US, it's getting swept under the rug. Reporters get paid to write news-worthy stories. And the extent of Epstein & his cohorts crimes are newsworthy......especially to the victims & their families.

Maybe if the media did give this story enough effort, it might quiet those rumors of 'Epstein didn't kill himself' that is so prevailant

Such salacious stories are "stories" only in the same sense that pickup trucks and SUVs are "desired vehicles" --- because we're ordered by the MSM to perceive them as such. The simple fact is, if JeffHarvey Steinstein is running a serial sexual predator operation, it's an issue for him, it's an issue for his victims, it's an issue for law enforcement dealing with it, and that's it. Got nothing in the world to do with you or me. Same with how Michael Jackson died, who Tom Cruise is dating, who da baby daddy is on Maury Povich's stage, or whether those naked people survive on that island. Fuck 'em. ALL of those and way more are just emotional hooks to try to invest the reader/listener/viewer. Doesn't affect us. Emotion-milking attention-craving media wants us to BELIEVE it affects us. It doesn't. Investing in them emotionally is a waste of time and energy.

So to return to my last note, if my objective were to report actual news, this wouldn't qualify. If my objective were to exploit human emotion so I could sell tires with the ensuing commercials ---- it would. But in order to live in the latter I'd have to surrender all principles except the self-interested.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

If capitalism and making money.....and not politics......were their driving force?????? Why didn't ABC (or whichever one) run the Epstein story that reporter was caught on hot mike talking about...…...that story alone would have made them rich and ratings thru the roof.

Good point, in hindsight -- it would indeed have scored them a spike IF it got legs when they would have brought it out. Of course, once the story is out, IF it gets legs, then everybody who touches it gets their own spike, which is why they start stretching.

The network exec who reportedly told the reporter "nobody knows who he is" has a point though. I never heard of the guy until the avalanche of stories and mythologies, which required a first step of explaining who you're talking about and why you should care. That's always an uphill climb, and maybe they didn't want to take that climb on. Maybe they misjudged what would sell and what wouldn't.

BULLSHIT

BULLSHIT.

I see your bullshit and raise you a font point. Anything you can do I can do bigger.

True enough that Epstein hadn't been much of a household name......until it was...…..and why was it?????


Because he was a high profile pedophile, and human trafficker with high profile connections......that would make news anyday, anywhere.

That's in no way guaranteed. It's easy to look back in hindsight (he said redundantly) and declare its story legs were inevitable but were they? Is it a story that affects anybody outside the circle of the predator and his victims? No. Outside the circle all it's worth is a chance for uninvolved bystanders to click their tongues at from the sidelines. Personally I have way better things to do. That other guy Weinstein --- the guy nobody pronounces his name right ---- same thing. Never heard of him, has absolute zero impact on me, who cares. So if it were up to me to decide "is this a story", in either case I can't find a way to say it is. If I'm a news editor my next question is "what ELSE do we have?".

And my whole point was that it is politics that drive the media, which you've claimed several times in this thread it's profits. IF it were profits via ratings & viewership, then they'd spend as much time reporting stories such as Epstein as they do about impeaching a duly elected President

Yes they would ---- IF IT SELLS. And I think they have. Just a question of whether there are enough tongue-clickers to milk. And they CLEARLY ALREADY DO that with any number of other who-cares stories about other people's personal lives that have zero impact on you and me.

Also ------ what other kind of President but a "duly elected" one could be impeached? Gotcha.

Of course the story would sell, cause everyone (but you of course) wants to know more about it...….but here in the US, it's getting swept under the rug. Reporters get paid to write news-worthy stories. And the extent of Epstein & his cohorts crimes are newsworthy......especially to the victims & their families.

Maybe if the media did give this story enough effort, it might quiet those rumors of 'Epstein didn't kill himself' that is so prevailant

Such salacious stories are "stories" only in the same sense that pickup trucks and SUVs are "desired vehicles" --- because we're ordered by the MSM to perceive them as such. The simple fact is, if JeffHarvey Steinstein is running a serial sexual predator operation, it's an issue for him, it's an issue for his victims, it's an issue for law enforcement dealing with it, and that's it. Got nothing in the world to do with you or me. Same with how Michael Jackson died, who Tom Cruise is dating, who da baby daddy is on Maury Povich's stage, or whether those naked people survive on that island. Fuck 'em. ALL of those and way more are just emotional hooks to try to invest the reader/listener/viewer. Doesn't affect us. Emotion-milking attention-craving media wants us to BELIEVE it affects us. It doesn't. Investing in them emotionally is a waste of time and energy.

So to return to my last note, if my objective were to report actual news, this wouldn't qualify. If my objective were to exploit human emotion so I could sell tires with the ensuing commercials ---- it would. But in order to live in the latter I'd have to surrender all principles except the self-interested.

So what about stories like Sandy Hook? Parkland, FL? Vegas???? Or any number of other shooting sites????????

Unless you or a friend or family member was involved.....nobody cares right???? But the media just couldn't get enough of that shit. Not just the main story line, but from all angles, any & all willing witnesses, the families of victims, state agencies...….the list goes on of the number of stories the media has run into the ground.


WHY???


Because that type of propaganda furthers the political issue of the Right to Keep & Bear Arms.


Yes the media is politically biased

 

[Pogo]

Good point, in hindsight -- it would indeed have scored them a spike IF it got legs when they would have brought it out. Of course, once the story is out, IF it gets legs, then everybody who touches it gets their own spike, which is why they start stretching.

The network exec who reportedly told the reporter "nobody knows who he is" has a point though. I never heard of the guy until the avalanche of stories and mythologies, which required a first step of explaining who you're talking about and why you should care. That's always an uphill climb, and maybe they didn't want to take that climb on. Maybe they misjudged what would sell and what wouldn't.

BULLSHIT

BULLSHIT.

I see your bullshit and raise you a font point. Anything you can do I can do bigger.

True enough that Epstein hadn't been much of a household name......until it was...…..and why was it?????


Because he was a high profile pedophile, and human trafficker with high profile connections......that would make news anyday, anywhere.

That's in no way guaranteed. It's easy to look back in hindsight (he said redundantly) and declare its story legs were inevitable but were they? Is it a story that affects anybody outside the circle of the predator and his victims? No. Outside the circle all it's worth is a chance for uninvolved bystanders to click their tongues at from the sidelines. Personally I have way better things to do. That other guy Weinstein --- the guy nobody pronounces his name right ---- same thing. Never heard of him, has absolute zero impact on me, who cares. So if it were up to me to decide "is this a story", in either case I can't find a way to say it is. If I'm a news editor my next question is "what ELSE do we have?".

And my whole point was that it is politics that drive the media, which you've claimed several times in this thread it's profits. IF it were profits via ratings & viewership, then they'd spend as much time reporting stories such as Epstein as they do about impeaching a duly elected President

Yes they would ---- IF IT SELLS. And I think they have. Just a question of whether there are enough tongue-clickers to milk. And they CLEARLY ALREADY DO that with any number of other who-cares stories about other people's personal lives that have zero impact on you and me.

Also ------ what other kind of President but a "duly elected" one could be impeached? Gotcha.

Of course the story would sell, cause everyone (but you of course) wants to know more about it...….but here in the US, it's getting swept under the rug. Reporters get paid to write news-worthy stories. And the extent of Epstein & his cohorts crimes are newsworthy......especially to the victims & their families.

Maybe if the media did give this story enough effort, it might quiet those rumors of 'Epstein didn't kill himself' that is so prevailant

Such salacious stories are "stories" only in the same sense that pickup trucks and SUVs are "desired vehicles" --- because we're ordered by the MSM to perceive them as such. The simple fact is, if JeffHarvey Steinstein is running a serial sexual predator operation, it's an issue for him, it's an issue for his victims, it's an issue for law enforcement dealing with it, and that's it. Got nothing in the world to do with you or me. Same with how Michael Jackson died, who Tom Cruise is dating, who da baby daddy is on Maury Povich's stage, or whether those naked people survive on that island. Fuck 'em. ALL of those and way more are just emotional hooks to try to invest the reader/listener/viewer. Doesn't affect us. Emotion-milking attention-craving media wants us to BELIEVE it affects us. It doesn't. Investing in them emotionally is a waste of time and energy.

So to return to my last note, if my objective were to report actual news, this wouldn't qualify. If my objective were to exploit human emotion so I could sell tires with the ensuing commercials ---- it would. But in order to live in the latter I'd have to surrender all principles except the self-interested.

So what about stories like Sandy Hook? Parkland, FL? Vegas???? Or any number of other shooting sites????????

Unless you or a friend or family member was involved.....nobody cares right???? But the media just couldn't get enough of that shit. Not just the main story line, but from all angles, any & all willing witnesses, the families of victims, state agencies...….the list goes on of the number of stories the media has run into the ground.


WHY???


Because that type of propaganda furthers the political issue of the Right to Keep & Bear Arms.


Yes the media is politically biased

Nope. Sandy Hook is a story for the same reason Virginia Tech and Binghamton and the Amish girls and Columbine and Oak Creek and Tucson and Las Vegas and El Paso and Pittsburgh and Virginia Beach and just this week Pearl Harbor and Pensacola are --- because that gun-fetish violence-worshiping cult *IS* a direct threat to you and me. Each and every one demonstrates it can happen anywhere at any time and each and every one reminds us YET AGAIN that we have yet to fix it.

And your trying to twist it into mass shooters' rights to mass-shoot makes me want to puke.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

BULLSHIT

BULLSHIT.

I see your bullshit and raise you a font point. Anything you can do I can do bigger.

True enough that Epstein hadn't been much of a household name......until it was...…..and why was it?????


Because he was a high profile pedophile, and human trafficker with high profile connections......that would make news anyday, anywhere.

That's in no way guaranteed. It's easy to look back in hindsight (he said redundantly) and declare its story legs were inevitable but were they? Is it a story that affects anybody outside the circle of the predator and his victims? No. Outside the circle all it's worth is a chance for uninvolved bystanders to click their tongues at from the sidelines. Personally I have way better things to do. That other guy Weinstein --- the guy nobody pronounces his name right ---- same thing. Never heard of him, has absolute zero impact on me, who cares. So if it were up to me to decide "is this a story", in either case I can't find a way to say it is. If I'm a news editor my next question is "what ELSE do we have?".

And my whole point was that it is politics that drive the media, which you've claimed several times in this thread it's profits. IF it were profits via ratings & viewership, then they'd spend as much time reporting stories such as Epstein as they do about impeaching a duly elected President

Yes they would ---- IF IT SELLS. And I think they have. Just a question of whether there are enough tongue-clickers to milk. And they CLEARLY ALREADY DO that with any number of other who-cares stories about other people's personal lives that have zero impact on you and me.

Also ------ what other kind of President but a "duly elected" one could be impeached? Gotcha.

Of course the story would sell, cause everyone (but you of course) wants to know more about it...….but here in the US, it's getting swept under the rug. Reporters get paid to write news-worthy stories. And the extent of Epstein & his cohorts crimes are newsworthy......especially to the victims & their families.

Maybe if the media did give this story enough effort, it might quiet those rumors of 'Epstein didn't kill himself' that is so prevailant

Such salacious stories are "stories" only in the same sense that pickup trucks and SUVs are "desired vehicles" --- because we're ordered by the MSM to perceive them as such. The simple fact is, if JeffHarvey Steinstein is running a serial sexual predator operation, it's an issue for him, it's an issue for his victims, it's an issue for law enforcement dealing with it, and that's it. Got nothing in the world to do with you or me. Same with how Michael Jackson died, who Tom Cruise is dating, who da baby daddy is on Maury Povich's stage, or whether those naked people survive on that island. Fuck 'em. ALL of those and way more are just emotional hooks to try to invest the reader/listener/viewer. Doesn't affect us. Emotion-milking attention-craving media wants us to BELIEVE it affects us. It doesn't. Investing in them emotionally is a waste of time and energy.

So to return to my last note, if my objective were to report actual news, this wouldn't qualify. If my objective were to exploit human emotion so I could sell tires with the ensuing commercials ---- it would. But in order to live in the latter I'd have to surrender all principles except the self-interested.

So what about stories like Sandy Hook? Parkland, FL? Vegas???? Or any number of other shooting sites????????

Unless you or a friend or family member was involved.....nobody cares right???? But the media just couldn't get enough of that shit. Not just the main story line, but from all angles, any & all willing witnesses, the families of victims, state agencies...….the list goes on of the number of stories the media has run into the ground.


WHY???


Because that type of propaganda furthers the political issue of the Right to Keep & Bear Arms.


Yes the media is politically biased

Nope. Sandy Hook is a story for the same reason Virginia Tech and Binghamton and the Amish girls and Columbine and Oak Creek and Tucson and Las Vegas and El Paso and Pittsburgh and Virginia Beach and just this week Pearl Harbor and Pensacola are --- because that gun-fetish violence-worshiping cult *IS* a direct threat to you and me. Each and every one demonstrates it can happen anywhere at any time and each and every one reminds us YET AGAIN that we have yet to fix it.

And your trying to twist it into mass shooters' rights to mass-shoot makes me want to puke.

As does yours of a notorious sexual predator and his high profile cohorts of young girls (and boys?), knowing full well justice for the victims will probably never happen....

 

[Pogo]

BULLSHIT.

I see your bullshit and raise you a font point. Anything you can do I can do bigger.


That's in no way guaranteed. It's easy to look back in hindsight (he said redundantly) and declare its story legs were inevitable but were they? Is it a story that affects anybody outside the circle of the predator and his victims? No. Outside the circle all it's worth is a chance for uninvolved bystanders to click their tongues at from the sidelines. Personally I have way better things to do. That other guy Weinstein --- the guy nobody pronounces his name right ---- same thing. Never heard of him, has absolute zero impact on me, who cares. So if it were up to me to decide "is this a story", in either case I can't find a way to say it is. If I'm a news editor my next question is "what ELSE do we have?".

Yes they would ---- IF IT SELLS. And I think they have. Just a question of whether there are enough tongue-clickers to milk. And they CLEARLY ALREADY DO that with any number of other who-cares stories about other people's personal lives that have zero impact on you and me.

Also ------ what other kind of President but a "duly elected" one could be impeached? Gotcha.

Of course the story would sell, cause everyone (but you of course) wants to know more about it...….but here in the US, it's getting swept under the rug. Reporters get paid to write news-worthy stories. And the extent of Epstein & his cohorts crimes are newsworthy......especially to the victims & their families.

Maybe if the media did give this story enough effort, it might quiet those rumors of 'Epstein didn't kill himself' that is so prevailant

Such salacious stories are "stories" only in the same sense that pickup trucks and SUVs are "desired vehicles" --- because we're ordered by the MSM to perceive them as such. The simple fact is, if JeffHarvey Steinstein is running a serial sexual predator operation, it's an issue for him, it's an issue for his victims, it's an issue for law enforcement dealing with it, and that's it. Got nothing in the world to do with you or me. Same with how Michael Jackson died, who Tom Cruise is dating, who da baby daddy is on Maury Povich's stage, or whether those naked people survive on that island. Fuck 'em. ALL of those and way more are just emotional hooks to try to invest the reader/listener/viewer. Doesn't affect us. Emotion-milking attention-craving media wants us to BELIEVE it affects us. It doesn't. Investing in them emotionally is a waste of time and energy.

So to return to my last note, if my objective were to report actual news, this wouldn't qualify. If my objective were to exploit human emotion so I could sell tires with the ensuing commercials ---- it would. But in order to live in the latter I'd have to surrender all principles except the self-interested.

So what about stories like Sandy Hook? Parkland, FL? Vegas???? Or any number of other shooting sites????????

Unless you or a friend or family member was involved.....nobody cares right???? But the media just couldn't get enough of that shit. Not just the main story line, but from all angles, any & all willing witnesses, the families of victims, state agencies...….the list goes on of the number of stories the media has run into the ground.


WHY???


Because that type of propaganda furthers the political issue of the Right to Keep & Bear Arms.


Yes the media is politically biased

Nope. Sandy Hook is a story for the same reason Virginia Tech and Binghamton and the Amish girls and Columbine and Oak Creek and Tucson and Las Vegas and El Paso and Pittsburgh and Virginia Beach and just this week Pearl Harbor and Pensacola are --- because that gun-fetish violence-worshiping cult *IS* a direct threat to you and me. Each and every one demonstrates it can happen anywhere at any time and each and every one reminds us YET AGAIN that we have yet to fix it.

And your trying to twist it into mass shooters' rights to mass-shoot makes me want to puke.

As does yours of a notorious sexual predator and his high profile cohorts of young girls (and boys?), knowing full well justice for the victims will probably never happen....

My knowing about said sexual predator has absolutely ZERO influence on any of that. I'm not law enforcement; I'm not a victim; and I'm not a predator. Therefore the info about that person is of no use to me. If I choose in future to go into law enforcement, THEN it will be useful info.