This is the same sentiment espoused by the Bronzed Emperor’s campaign in regards to a political ad documenting the emperors own words.But even so, there's no reason that kind of bs should be allowed in an American election. It's an effect of letting money talk - which used to be known as corruption and bribery and so forth, rather than "free speech".
It differs in its objection to bribery and lies, rather than speech and honest claim. So from a base in reality, it's kind of the opposite "sentiment".This is the same sentiment espoused by the Bronzed Emperor’s campaign in regards to a political ad documenting the emperors own words.
Why would I, or anyone with sense, agree with that?I guess it depends on their desired goal. If Russian operatives were now engaged in an underhanded effort to remove Trump from office, that would be a good thing. Right?
Not until recently.That kind of bs is the meat and potatoes of political speech from all sides to one degree or another.
The sources of the money are not listed under the title. Neither is the name of the author, or authors. The video itself pretends that Rossi is the author - the claims made in the video would be obvious lies otherwise, instead of hidden dishonesties.Like all Youtube videos, the name of the author is listed under the title, Luca Rossi is merely the presenter of their propaganda.
I wouldn't.Many governments around the world, the US included, engage in disseminating propaganda to further their foreign policy goals. Why would you expect any less from the Russians?
But it’s similar in the fact that both the pro and anti Trump videos present contextual descriptions of his actions that don’t necessarily validate the stated claims.It differs in its objection to bribery and lies, rather than speech and honest claim. So from a base in reality, it's kind of the opposite "sentiment".
Bribery used to be illegal, instead of free speech. So did slander, btw - there were some lies one could not pay to have broadcast.
While Russian operatives influencing our elections may not be ideal from our perspective, given the fact that their previous meddling helped put him into office, anything that they could do to get him out would be in fact a good thing. Contrary to the old saw, sometimes two wrongs do make a right.Why would I, or anyone with sense, agree with that?
Presenting the action of an individual in idealized context to maximize the effect of a particular message is as old as the hills.Not until recently.
It's a consequence of the Citizen's United decision, among other changes - before that decision it was illegal.
Since when do opinion oriented media outlets make a habit of listing the sources of money behind their respective presentations? The de facto authors of such presentations are the media organizations listed in association with the videos, in this case it was the Institute of Public Affairs. Organizations such as the one in question have documented histories of their policy, membership and donors.The sources of the money are not listed under the title. Neither is the name of the author, or authors. The video itself pretends that Rossi is the author - the claims made in the video would be obvious lies otherwise, instead of hidden dishonesties.
And you aren’t responsible for the policy goals of those given nations. All national governments engage in actions that violate the norms of civility in the name of national security. To particular governmental agencies, actions considered to be inappropriate or illegal domestically, may not be so in foreign locations. They’re criminals when caught on foreign soil, and heros back home, so what else is new? As for the domestic collaborators, they sometimes are in a position to blur the links of complicity, and escape just prosecution.I wouldn't.
I would expect them and their collaborators to be prosecuted when caught.
Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeditionSedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.
Destroying the legitimacy of elected office in American - wrecking American democracy - would be a bad thing, in my opinion, regardless of short term benefit. It would prevent removal of Republican office holders and recovery from Republican administration, for starters - so getting rid of Trump would do no good.While Russian operatives influencing our elections may not be ideal from our perspective, given the fact that their previous meddling helped put him into office, anything that they could do to get him out would be in fact a good thing.
Maddow does not tell lies or deal in falsehoods on camera, and her entire support (financial, journalistic, etc) is open information.Luca Rossi is to IPA, as Rachel Maddow is to MSNBC, they’re both employed as scripted mouthpie
And that is bad - right? You do understand that complicity with foreign agents in the ruination of American politics is in the eyes of sensible Americans a bad thing as well as a criminal act, I hope.As for the domestic collaborators, they sometimes are in a position to blur the links of complicity, and escape just prosecution.
No, they are not. The authors of such presentations are in physical fact human beings - "de facto" means "in physical fact".The de facto authors of such presentations are the media organizations listed in association with the videos, in this case it was the Institute of Public Affairs.
"Opinion oriented" ? Wingnuts don't even know what news and journalism is, any more.Since when do opinion oriented media outlets make a habit of listing the sources of money behind their respective presentations?
Wingnut Syntax Collapse, example 543 - it always happens eventually, that one took what, four posts?But it’s similar in the fact that both the pro and anti Trump videos present contextual descriptions of his actions that don’t necessarily validate the stated claims.
On the rare occasion that her information was incorrect, I have heard Rachel Maddow apologize and correct the records. This is the mark of honest reporting according to the facts and is beneficial for a smart "informed citizenry".Maddow does not tell lies or deal in falsehoods on camera, and her entire support (financial, journalistic, etc) is open information
Why would I, or anyone with sense, agree with that?
"No, one of the biggest problems the world has is the germ has gotten so brilliant that the antibiotic can’t keep up with it, they’re constantly trying to come up with — a new. People go to a hospital and they catch — they go for a heart operation, that’s no problem, and they end up dying from problems. You know the problems I’m talking about.”
Usually to their ruination and everlasting regret.but then one remembers that they willingly took that job in Trump's administration, and haven't quit on principle.
New
↑
but then one remembers that they willingly took that job in Trump's administration, and haven't quit on principle.
Usually to their ruination and everlasting regret.
I agree with your statement, but that's not what iceaura said. Read the quote again......For now perhaps , but when , trump ( lower case because I have no respect for him ) is out of power , I'm sure respect will be given . Without ruination and everlasting regret .
Standing up for your principles , is a tough thing to do , among the majority that aren't .
Engaging in Trumpian behavior? I see no redeeming qualities in any of that actual behavior.Capracus said: ↑
I guess it depends on their desired goal. If Russian operatives were now engaged in an underhanded effort to remove Trump from office, that would be a good thing. Right?
I agree with your statement, but that's not what iceaura said. Read the quote again......
To their credit, some did quit on principle. Those were the true civil servants deserving of respect and honor.
The Russians and Americans are going to meddle in the political affairs of foreign nations whether you or I think it’s appropriate or not, so when they do it in a way that actually benefits a target nation, I’m not going to pretend that no good was accomplished. If Vladimir Putin had his agents poison you, and he later decided to give you the antidote, would his act of offering you the cure for your ills be a bad thing?Engaging in Trumpian behavior? I see no redeeming qualities in any of that actual behavior.
We can wish it.....
It depends on the price you have to pay to get the antidote.f Vladimir Putin had his agents poison you, and he later decided to give you the antidote, would his act of offering you the cure for your ills be a bad thing?