- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Posts
- 4,321
- Main Camera
- iPhone
No. Pelosi has not stated why she is visiting Taiwan.So the point of her trip, yet again, is to antagonize China while we’re already staring down a potential nuclear conflict.
No. Pelosi has not stated why she is visiting Taiwan.So the point of her trip, yet again, is to antagonize China while we’re already staring down a potential nuclear conflict.
As you pointed out previously, to do the same shit stirring she did 30 years ago.No. Pelosi has not stated why she is visiting Taiwan.
As you pointed out previously, to do the same shit stirring she did 30 years ago.
I’m not sure how China has a leg to stand on when they don’t give other nations the respect they demand for themselves.We are clearly building the consent for the future war we want with the future leader of the multipolar world.
This is a PR step in that process. All military estimates expect us to actually fight China in the 2030’s. They’ve been talking about it since the 70’s.
I don’t understand this flippant attitude that America has, where we can just do whatever we want on paper thin pretenses that are hypocritical at best and cynical in reality. We have no reason to antagonize China, and when it comes down to it, barring a major restructuring of the world economy we’re going to lose badly when we finally try, until we’re facing a nuclear situation.
Detente should be the path forward for international relations, but nobody wants it for reasons that are petty regurgitated talking points. America doesn’t give a fuck about Taiwan outside using it as a color revolution staging ground against china, and the fact that we sold our state capacity to build ANYTHING for a couple of decades of Wall Street riches.
The chickens are coming home to roost.
It's a fucking trip by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. If that sets off a war it's because China is full of crazy assholes, with Xi as the head clown. No wonder Pooh and Mango got along so well.So the point of her trip, yet again, is to antagonize China while we’re already staring down a potential nuclear conflict.
This sounds like another version of the “MSM” conspiracy from the far right. All the newspapers, TV stations, and websites are working together to lie to America. Does this version also have the one heroic news source who tells the truth as Fox News? Or another ‘truth-teller’ instead?Jake Sullivan.
There’s plenty of work going on behind the scenes to shape your average American’s geopolitical understanding of what’s going on in the world.
Unfortunately it’s very clear that our domestic propaganda clearly works marvelously for those unaware of what having “former” intelligence officials at the heads of all the major news agencies actually means.
The status quo has held for so long that it is hard to end the "polite fiction". And the PRC is rather aggressive about getting public figures to play along to avoid an incident (i.e. John Cena), so it would take a lot to undo it at this point. That said, I do fundamentally agree that we shouldn't just fall into the pattern of appeasement and detente that didn't work for Ukraine, and didn't work for Europe in the 20th century.I am not for war with China, but I am for ending the BS "polite fiction" of "one China". If we've learned anything from Ukraine, it should be to not underestimate the propensity for autocrats to just go and grab what they want.
And I seriously hope anyone attempting that sort of nonsense fails, that said, I'd need something a bit more compelling than a screen grab from an unknown source. Or would revealing the source reveal the bias of that source? Propaganda works in both directions.There’s plenty of work going on behind the scenes to shape your average American’s geopolitical understanding of what’s going on in the world.
Unfortunately it’s very clear that our domestic propaganda clearly works marvelously for those unaware of what having “former” intelligence officials at the heads of all the major news agencies actually means.
I did a quick word search after a source was conveniently left off:And I seriously hope anyone attempting that sort of nonsense fails, that said, I'd need something a bit more compelling than a screen grab from an unknown source.
Sott.net (short for Signs of the Times) is a website founded in 2002 by the Quantum Future Group, founded by an American conspiracy theorist, Laura Knight-Jadczyk.
It is known for promoting pseudoscientific and esoteric content published on other platforms, as well as right-wing populist views[1] as well as misinformation about the 2020 American presidential election and the COVID-19 pandemic. Media Bias/Fact Check lists the website as strongly conspiritorial and pseudoscientific.[2]
Yeah, no!! A bunch of nutters swallowing Pooh's rhetoric whole.
I’m a leftist soooo.This sounds like another version of the “MSM” conspiracy from the far right. All the newspapers, TV stations, and websites are working together to lie to America. Does this version also have the one heroic news source who tells the truth as Fox News? Or another ‘truth-teller’ instead?
Unfortunately it’s very clear that our domestic propaganda clearly works marvelously for those unaware of what having “former” intelligence officials at the heads of all the major news agencies actually means.
I didn’t say you supported Fox or Trump. But the assertion that no media can be trusted and is run by former intelligence officials is an audacious one, usually only seen from those convinced that Fox is the only network telling the truth.So…does that make me a Trump supporting Fox News watching idiot in your eyes or can you people at least see what my perspective is and why I’ve come to it? Are we here to talk, or just make assumptions about each other?
John Brennan, James Clapper, Chuck Rosenberg, Michael Hayden, Frank Figliuzzi, Fran Townsend, Stephen Hall, Samantha Vinograd, Andrew McCabe, Josh Campbell, Asha Rangappa, Phil Mudd, James Gagliano, Jeremy Bash, Susan Hennessey, Ned Price, Leon Ponetta, etc.Being kind of a US intelligence agencies junkie...I'm curious which former intelligence agency officials now head all of the major news agencies. Can you help me out with that?
John Brennan, James Clapper, Chuck Rosenberg, Michael Hayden, Frank Figliuzzi, Fran Townsend, Stephen Hall, Samantha Vinograd, Andrew McCabe, Josh Campbell, Asha Rangappa, Phil Mudd, James Gagliano, Jeremy Bash, Susan Hennessey, Ned Price, Leon Ponetta, etc.
You can look them up if you wish and which news sources they are now the “heads” of. John Brennan for example “serves as a senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC News and MSNBC”. The same Brennan who spied ON THE CONGRESSIONAL committee that oversees intelligence agencies as head of the CIA under Obama.
But I’m sure that all these people working directly AT news agencies across the board has no sway on that hard hitting reporting these networks do. The acceptance of “unmanned intelligence officials” as “sources” in journalism used to be considered scandalous and even malpractice not even 30 years ago. In the last 10 source accreditation to these anonymous has accelerated massively.
I’m sure they have no part in furthering their “former” employing agencies pet projects.
The media (investigative journalism) was supposed to be the “check” on these powers, now they’re literally stenographers.
I should make it clear that they’re not “running” these news agencies, they’re merely using them to make sure the narratives they want out in the public get there. A tiny unimportant but recent example: the Snake Island story which made its way around the world before eventually having to be retracted. Nobody bothered to ask for evidence and instead just ran with the “intelligence reports”.
Really? You want a report in each one? The fact that the former head (John Brennan) of the CIA is actually employed as a Senior Analyst for NBC doesn’t lead you to want to look further?I'll take "let me google that for you for $1000 Ken..."
No, they’re involved in editorial direction and often turned to on the talk shows for their (agency’s) take on a given topic.Ah, OK. I recognize those names as being interviewed in the past.
I thought "at the heads of all the major news agencies" meant they now are in charge of all the major news agencies.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.