defend the indefensible: glenn fucking greenwald

Shouting “you want WWIII” over anyone who talks about the Russian govt in negative terms is in no way an embarrassing trope or bad for the discourse.

TFW you're slamming Rachel Maddow for conspiracy theories by linking to a guy who pushed Seth Rich, Syria false flag & Hillary health conspiracies (aka an actual conspiracy theorist) pic.twitter.com/kv2SUa8lQj

— Centrism Fan Acct 🔹 (@Wilson__Valdez) June 15, 2018

And as has been repeatedly pointed out to Glenn (including in the replies to this very tweet) the segment's premise was based directly on this reporting from the rw WSJ, that said the very thing that he is calling an insane conspiracy. pic.twitter.com/MYKk6eKECw

— Centrism Fan Acct 🔹 (@Wilson__Valdez) June 15, 2018

Good god that dude has gone off the deep end.

honestly what irks me most about GG is he's perfectly capable of a reasonable, well-balanced take or interview (what I saw of the Ocasio-Cortez interview was good, his recent Chapo appearance was pretty much completely unobjectionable AFAICT), but when he's wrong or misleading he invariably doubles down, deflects, or obfuscates instead of owning up to it (not a problem unique to him of course). This is a general problem with the pundit/journalist class - evolution is generally a liability

I for one am willing to admit I've mostly only noticed the OK takes cause I don't follow him on Twitter, meaning I only see the ones my followers have prescreened for approval

The thing that most irks me about that is Ocasio-Cortez and Chapo still dealing with him and pretending he is not an idiot who consistently goes on Fox News to attack the left.

enh O-C needs all the media support she can get givent he short campaigning window (and won't get any attention from mainstream media ever) and Chapo has never really consistently vetted their guests beyond having a shared set of dunks on whatever libs or chuds they're talking about in a given week, which is fine since that's at least 85% of their whole thing

his clowndom on Hannity is unforgivable. love the implication that somehow your avg shitlib is somehow more dangerous/ more influential than Sean fucking Hannity.

Chapo should vet their guests and why would O-C need media support from a Fox regular? Alarm bells should ring.

yes why would somebody running for office want support from the media? i mean aside from trying to get voters ofc

I would wager that for most people, GG/the Intercept doesn't have an immediate Fox connotation regardless of his appearances there, but even if he did, she's there to deliver a message, not boost his. xp

People who still believe in GG/intercept are idiots at this point, and it should be disturbing that a progressive candidate depends on that kind of idiots to get into power. What kind of message can she deliver? And you could use the same logic anywhere. Some idiot going on Breitbart, but to deliver a message, not boost them. Also, she rails against PACs and corporations because she (correctly) says they inevitably influences the politicians who depends on them, but on the other hand she joins hands with Fox contributors to get votes from idiots and think it doesn't matter?

you're not a smart man

I flagged your post because you used "idiot(s)" 4 times. Learn more words.

If we lock this thread will it trap Fred B inside forever?

does mordy still post ?

Frederik is more dangerous than Hannity

btw about 5000 Americans know what the intercept is, you brie-eating fucko

The Simpsons are "Fox contributors" btw

If we lock this thread will it trap Fred B inside forever?

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Friday, June 15, 2018

https://moviesijustwatchedforthe1sttime.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/phantom-zone.jpg

There was a more recent post in this thread worse than Fred saying “idiot” a few times. I MIGHT have flagged it. Just a heads up.

lol

https://www.rt.com/usa/432042-greenwald-rt-interview-moscow/

It’s particularly grotesque how he downplays the child separation policy here. Like you can “whatabout Obama” to a point but to avoid mentioning the logistical crisis of housing and reuniting the families that the current admin is dealing with indicates an attempt to hide that something substantially different is happening now.

The agency that deports people is ICE, which was created under George W Bush and expanded under President Obama. Families were often separated, children were put into cages under President Obama. So you can go down the list and see many of the same policies that get so much attention under Trump that got very little under Obama.

is any of this false objectively?

it is funny to complain about the right using scapegoats right before you do the same. do you expect people to not remember that the Democratic presidential candidate voted for the security state that created ICE in the first place?

Yes yes “everything is the same” is a good way to cloak the fact that your politics have no empathy.. Follow the news better. They openly bragged about how the current policy is different. “Zero tolerance”. And also again, the current logistical nightmare involving the housing of the migrant children I.e something different is going on. Also the president calling immigrants “vermin” etc

nobody i know of is saying "the same"

but there is such a thing as trodding a path, whether for this or droning families (which few cry about under any president)

Speaking of droning. And trodding a path.

don't you guys get tired of this shit?

I'm tired of Adam's shit, for sure.

immensely tired. it's also fun to make fun of people who continually suck ass and are annoying and GG is tops in that

far behind the reg posters here

i passed "tired" 8 years ago

I think this is the most revealing part:

RT: There are anti-establishment voices on the right and on the left. How has the perceptions of the left and the right shifted?

G.G: I think, in Italy you see, for example, that what is traditionally the right and the left is changing very dramatically. There is a government in place formed by a coalition of what traditionally has been called the left and the right. But they are now really called more opposition to the establishment.

In the United States for a long time this shift has been taking place. Two of the most important protest movements in the US – one was the Tea Party, the other was Occupy Wall Street – were both perceived to be on different ends of the political spectrum. Yet they had very similar issues in common. They were protesting the bailout of Wall Street after the Wall Street crisis, the domination of corporations. When Donald Trump ran for president, even though he was perceived as a right-wing candidate, he did so by criticizing the Iraq war, by criticizing American militarism, by promising to ‘drain the swamp’ of corporate influence.

You see a similar dynamic in Brexit, where there were elements of the right and the left against the European Union. I think that left and right as we understood them for the last four decades are starting to morph into pro-establishment and anti-establishment dynamics and that will only continue.

Does anyone really doubt anymore that the reason it seemed as if he did anything he could in autumn 2016 to hurt Clinton and help Trump was because he supported Trump?

No

I mean, he goes on RT because they pay him. He goes on Tucker because they pay him. He’s a venal sellout who stands for nothing. This is completely obvious.

I don't know, he seems to stand for plenty, it's just that it's either aligns with, or is easily co-opted by, right wing authoritarianism.

He is one step away from realising that, hey, the establishment is pretty Jewish? And then there will be no contradictions in his thinking anymore.

Sorry, he is two steps away from that. It's probably 'rootless cosmopolitanism' next, or something like that.

Some fun quotes from back when he was every lefty's favorite Bush-basher:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dhd6R8bUcAEDV_z.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dhd6SmIU8AAE8jj.jpg

It's really hard to imagine how he ended up supporting Trump, isn't it?

Wow

Does anyone really doubt anymore that the reason it seemed as if he did anything he could in autumn 2016 to hurt Clinton and help Trump was because he supported Trump?

― Frederik B, Saturday, July 7, 2018 4:18 AM (five hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

No

― El Tomboto, Saturday, July 7, 2018 5:53 AM

put down the Danish crack pipe

GG supported the candidate who called for his friend Snowden's execution -- got it! That makes Obama's "rope-a-dope" look like... well, a much smaller Centrist Democrat fantasy.

sadlol

I enjoy dismissing your irrational defensiveness about this racist Fox News nincompoop more than you enjoy calling me a centrist

You're really basing your defense on a fantasy of GG and Snowden being bffs?

What principles of Greenwald's do you think Morbius actually supports? Or is it just Greenwald good, Clinton and Obama and the Democrats bad, Trump a non-factor?

“principles of Greenwald's”

Scott at LGM points out this gem, which is delicious

G.G: No, if anything, it’s convinced me that it’s more unlikely than ever. There are factions within the intelligence community of the United States, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI that hate Donald Trump and will do anything to destroy him, including leaking classified information against him. I believe that if there were evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russian government, when it comes to the hacking of the DNC or the John Podesta emails, we would have seen it by now.

ha hahha what in the actual fuck. unless his objective is just bare-faced accelerationism then I’m worried he may be suffering from a brain parasite