US Politics

And I have always had massive reservations about your judgement. (About me, not Harry)

Semantics until it isn't right? If there is evidence of terrorist activity by a particular group specifically then..... If no actual acts of terrorism or preparation for terrorism can be associated with a specific group then....

While you think the Guardian are highly motivated to overstate that angle, I'd contest that OANN are even more highly motivated to understate it.

Of course they are but they are not equivalent in this context. Only one is directly important-to/reflective-of Trump’s support.

Russia?

Just for LOLs Cuba should offer him refugee status.

Looks like the line just after that was missed by the editor:

A poll on Tuesday found that 45% of Republican voters supported the storming of the Capitol. These true believers will enable Trump to terrorize Republican primaries in 2002 and ensure the preservation of a large contingent in the House as well as in red state legislatures.

Pretty depressing stat regardless

Yes of course. I just think you could write that article almost any day of the last four years.

I know I’m cynical but that article is quite thin on substance. It’s reporting gossip and wouldn’t get published most places.

Doesn't the entire Trump clan need to make a quick getaway
to a country without an extradition treaty with the US?

With lawyers as brilliant as Rudy Giuliani? No way.

Looks like the Dems are going to go ahead with a 2nd impeachment, trying to get a vote mid next week.

It's reporting actual posts on websites. It's easy to go and find those usernames and their comments. I did. They seem to be genuine posts by Joe MAGA Public. How representative they are in total is a reasonable question, but saying OANN would be more accurate is just a category error. OANN is trying to direct how people think in a particular direction, not reflect what they think for themselves.

OANN is trying to direct how people think in a particular direction, not reflect what they think for themselves

This in spades. How anybody can consider a left of center newspaper with a fair amount of journalistic integrity to be similarly biased to a news channel that actively promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories and claims Trump won the election I don't know.

Pelosi's been speaking to the chair of the joint chiefs of staff about stopping Trump from launching nukes. Because this is where we live now.

Hmmm. Quite offended/disappointed you and others think I’m championing the impartiality of OANN or something.

If you have a clear mind (I think you do) then (aswell a guardian reporting) go and critically read the actual media of/for that audience no?

My original point in succinct terms:
The Guardian is a relatively poor source for ‘what the right think’ whilst you can literally read 4chan > OANN > Fox for yourself and see the repositioning in real time.

Oh Jesus. I give up.

No need to give up, you clairified your point well.

Your original post was ambiguous at best.

4chan > OANN > Fox

I just told you that's what I was doing.

Well captured shot on the Guardian front page at the moment.. shame about the mic stands

1 Attachment

I have a feeling that the inauguration is going to be a massive cluster fuck of violence and will make this week's events seem tame by comparison.

I was idly wondering about a seceded Republic of Texas.

a seceded Republic of Texas.

Again?

Your original post was ambiguous at best.

It’s a surprise to me but you’re proved correct.

For clarity ... IMHO when organised right wing media networks are forced (by public opinion) to reflect discontent you know it’s big. That is why you would be looking primarily at RW media such as OANN etc.

Then I presume you see the relative merit in that.

Texas is slowing turning blue at the moment

Again?

Whenever I read an isolated 'Again',
my mind always goes here.

Mexico will want it back.