Search the Community

⬆️ Trending via CBS News <- CNN chief executive Chris Licht has stepped down Embattled executive is leaving after only one year following series of missteps and declining employee morale. Does this mean that CNN is going back to Don Lemon's type of politics? or not too sure what to make of this resignation, which for me comes as a shocker. Personally, I think a lot of people were upset about the firing of Don Lemon at the network, the man had influence and was well-liked internally, so what if he comes back?! 😎

I ran across a random article, don't know who The Hub is, however, they state: "Canada needs an invigorated political middle", then say: Too bad our centrists are so boring. Poll: They also ask - Can a dynamic, relevant centrist movement emerge in a polarized Canada? I will use their data to make a thread about it. --- I acquired the domain www.centrism.ca as a result of a lighthearted conversation with @Michael Hardner on this forum after an evening of whiskey. However, as time has passed, I've noticed an increase in traffic to the domain, indicating a growing interest in this hobby. It has made me realize that if a serious political movement were to emerge in our country, as some people have started speculating, even if with irony, (see below 2 sources), it might be beneficial for this domain to be associated with prominent politicians in the future, therefore surrendering it. Perhaps even someone higher than @Moonbox, you are not political 100 % species either, my friend, sorry, which is a good thing 😎. This arrangement suits me because centrism is inherently political, but my intentions extend beyond traditional politics. My idea is more like a non-political megaphone, amplifying voices, and ideas that may otherwise go unheard. Easy work to be on the sidelines. I understand politics is harder than it looks, not that ignorant. There are certain things that remain elusive no matter how much attention you give them, and politics operates within a distinct realm. To claim participation in that world would be hypocritical, a sentiment that @Americana Antifa might even have a medical term for. Hence, if you are a serious politician or an organization seeking this domain, I invite you to come forward and present your ideas, even if 10 years from now. People can engage in debates, like in the democratic halls of Ancient Greece, we can make informed decisions. Such engagement could potentially increase the popularity of this platform, my "centrist" non-political platform which will have a new name and you can start here. https://thehub.ca/2023-06-05/ginny-roth-canada-needs-an-invigorated-political-centre-too-bad-our-centrists-are-so-boring/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-has-room-for-a-new-centrist-party-provided-we-can-define-what/

Welcome to the poll where we delve into the realm of Joe Rogan's politics! In an era where political discourse is often divided, finding balanced voices can be a challenge. Some turn to left-leaning sources like <- Secular Talk with Kyle K or the <- <- TYT brigade @Americana Antifa while others seek right-leaning perspectives from figures like the retired and outspoken Michael Savage ->-> (whom I was a former customer of in my younger irrational years) or the somewhat reasonable Ben Shapiro. -> Maybe you have some reasonable choices to add to the list. However, many have found their way to Joe Rogan's YouTube videos, just like me in the past years, as ideology has evolved in terms of American Politics and occasionally these days, listening in the background. Lately, I have observed his cautious approach, skillfully blending discussions on sports while consciously steering clear of controversial topics. Although he occasionally touches on the cultural war, I believe he is a very astute individual who recognizes the depths of the current political climate and the potential consequences of missteps. Maybe I might be wrong, I watch 1-2 videos a week. Poll: Supportive: I support Joe Rogan's political views and find them insightful and well-reasoned. Neutral: I don't have a strong opinion or haven't closely followed Joe Rogan's political stances. Critical: I disagree with Joe Rogan's politics and have concerns about some of his viewpoints or statements.

Left Wing <--- CNN drops Don Lemon as U.S. cable news sees major shakeup. <--> Another shocker, after Tucker Carlson's departure from the Right Wing ---> Fox News: https://repolitics.com/forums/topic/44274-tucker-carlson-out-at-fox-news/

Don Lemon became popular in my books when the Jussie Smollet story happened. Now, as soon as that story broke, a lot of people were outraged, but for me, something did not make sense. How did the MAGA fanatics dare to go into Chicago? Why not do this in another environment? You go into Chicago with a MAGA hat, I don't think you will make it out in one piece. So it was fishy. Then I saw Don Lemon's name as a front leader defending Jussie Smollett until the story found reality and then obviously to save his career he turned against Smollet. Of course, after that, reports came out that he was texting with Smollet and even had a segment with Chris Cuomo, another former hero at CNN, offering "advice after arrest" to Smollet. ---> Well, it seems Don Lemon has some issues now: Don Lemon Benched on Monday Over Sexist Remark Scandal, Insiders Say https://ca.news.yahoo.com/don-lemon-cut-cnn-monday-214229392.html

⬆️ Trending via Axios Federal judge rules to freeze use of abortion pill nationwide. A federal judge in Texas on Friday moved to force the Food and Drug Administration to pull its approval of a drug widely used in medication abortion, throwing its availability into doubt. The judge ruled that the preliminary injunction would take effect in seven days, allowing for the Biden administration to seek emergency relief. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement the Justice Department will appeal and seek a stay. ---> The debate is raging online, with many pointing out that the Judge is a Trump appointee. There is a process in place, there will be an appeal. The media (read the full article for this or Google It) seems to be playing as MAGA Trump, not as foul mouthed or thuggish, but they are quick to politicise the judicial system when a decision comes in that some do not like. Eventually, I have no doubt that after appeals, and if not now, very soon, a resolution will be found, but now would like to stop and notice the hypocrisy of some in the media. What is your opinion?

⬆️ Top Trending Story on Reddit. Will follow it as an engineer looking for the smallest flaw. Something is fishy here. Black man’s decapitated remains found after he warned his mom he was targeted by ‘truckloads of white guys" https://www.wafb.com/2023/04/27/black-mans-decapitated-remains-found-after-he-warned-his-mom-he-was-targeted-by-truckloads-white-guys/ If it's true, and some organized white men did this, not an issue, not a dogmatic, will post it here and blame a certain "group" but first, need to wait for the evidence to such a statement. Pending details.

This poll is done based on the ⬆️ Trending article from The Washington Post: Twitter has removed labels designating global media accounts as government-controlled or funded, allowing propaganda from China, Russia and other countries to be more widely seen . Musk has called himself a “free-speech absolutist” and said that wider verifications would help the cause of citizen journalism. “It’s very important to hear the voice of the people," he said in a recent video interview. "The actual voice of the people, not the filtered voice of people, and let the people choose the narrative, and let the people determine the truth and not five editors-in-chief of major publications.” Full read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/21/twitter-russia-china-state-media-propaganda/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_homepage Do you think removing Twitter's labels designating media accounts as government-controlled or funded helps adversary foreign media?

This poll is based on the ⬆️ trending article from The Toronto Sun: Conservatives want Twitter to label CBC accounts as 'government-funded' media CBC said in a statement that that is 'clearly not the case'. Do you agree with labelling CBC accounts as ‘government-funded’ media?

The justice overseeing the hush money case, Judge Merchan, said he would not issue a gag order at this time but advised against statements that could cause “civil unrest.” What is your opinion? ---> Should the judge impose a media gag order for Trump? It seems as a few hours ago, The Trump family went low, Donald Trump Jr. shared on social media a picture of the daughter of Judge Merchan, as he claimed that his father was being subjected to a “hand-picked Democrat show trial.” I don't understand the MAGA people, this case is weak, is increasing Donald's popularity, yet they chose to go after a Judge via an online posting?! Yah, okii, we will see how that plays out long term.

Poll (CA & US): What is political polarisation driven by in Canada and America, everywhere really? Multiple Options Poll: Ideology Media Tribalism Economic Factors Historical Legacies Other

Regardless of the motive and insanity. Right, Left, Sexual, Non-Sexual, Terror, etc. Deranged Shooters have become a pervasive problem in our society, and one issue that has been debated is whether or not the names of the perpetrators should be publicised. Some countries, such as New Zealand, have laws in place that prohibit publishing the names of mass shooters to avoid giving them notoriety and discouraging future attacks. Proponents of this approach argue that the attention given to these individuals only serves to glorify their actions, while Opponents argue that the public has a right to know who committed such atrocities. To Name or Not to Name? I would name the motivation, but the name of the specimen? the name of the low level machine that resorted to such acts? Absolutely not. What is your view?

Daily, I am seeing trending on the left side, articles against DeSantis. Daily. I understand what is happening. The <--- left wing media assisted by The Democratic influenced posters are trying to allow passage to Donald Trump to go against Joe Biden in the final by putting down DeSantis, is my estimation. From the concept: "The Devil you Know", plus midterms showed MAGA is not as strong HOWEVER, is a risky gamble. In my view, if there are serious issues with the economy, people will forget about Trump's issues and go directly into his arms as the saviour from New York. In one documentary that I have seen about him, someone said it well: he waits when times are desperate. So, if this campaign continues and DeSantis loses to Trump and then Donald ends up winning the presidency, please do not complain or ask to come into Canada, all you on the left that post against DeSantis. My house, anyways will not welcome anyone that did not learn a single thing from the Clinton campaign, which is not to play with the fire of populism.

A few minutes ago, this was trending. from CNN: In my books, yes, Fox News is not real news, just like CNN. Fox News (=) CNN Is CNN real news for you?

Pete Buttigieg is facing an investigation from House Republicans over the Biden administration's response to Norfolk Southern's toxic freight train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio – with lawmakers in his own party also questioning his department’s response. https://www.axios.com/2023/02/25/buttigieg-faces-congressional-scrutiny-over-ohio-derailment There are some media on the <--- left, which are arguing the opposite which is: Republicans need to do something about it. MSNBC is one, which says: "Why Pete Buttigieg isn't the villain in the East Palestine crash" Should Pete Buttigieg resign as Secretary of DOT?

Questions for Americans: Do you follow Canadian politics? Any favorite politician/party here? Which media sources do you use from Canada?

Yesterday a right wing populist on this website assumed that he knows my position on so called "Russia-Gate." Probably because I troll his master Trump, daily. Well, like every person of the mob, he was wrong, and this article which just popped-up now describes some of my views on this topic. I was always at the belief, is just a theory that some members of the media with influences from the Democratic Party overexaggerated this story for their own agenda. Did Trump used the Russians for his narcissism? Sure! But to think there was a conspiracy without the intelligence communities not alerting the political class or the media is just a wild theory out of the woods. Trump is just a puppet in my view, if he would have crossed that line, the people that are the muscle of America would not have allowed it. Muller Report, no action was taken. From Reason.com - leading libertarian source To retain journalistic credibility, getting a story right is more important than pursuing a crusade. That's a fair takeaway from a report published this week by the Columbia Journalism Review dissecting the so-called Russiagate saga, during which former President Donald Trump was accused of colluding with Russian officials to win the 2016 election. While pursuing the story, many journalists went well beyond their traditional role of scrutinizing powerful officials and not only openly picked a side in America's escalating political warfare but committed to proving a literal conspiracy theory true, no matter the evidence. It didn't go well. "The end of the long inquiry into whether Donald Trump was colluding with Russia came in July 2019, when Robert Mueller III, the special counsel, took seven, sometimes painful, hours to essentially say no," former New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth writes at the beginning of his detailed analysis. His old employer was at the center of the frenzy and its editors still defend their efforts, he adds. "But outside of the Times' own bubble, the damage to the credibility of the Times and its peers persists, three years on, and is likely to take on new energy as the nation faces yet another election season animated by antagonism toward the press. At its root was an undeclared war between an entrenched media, and a new kind of disruptive presidency, with its own hyperbolic version of the truth." The whole piece is worth reading, but make yourself a pot of coffee or crack open a bottle of wine—it's long. Nobody comes off looking especially good. That's true of the former president, though the flaws it reveals in Trump are nothing new to anybody who has watched him and his ego on the national stage. It's true of the FBI agents who joined with too many journalists to fan each other into a hopeful frenzy over the Steele dossier and its assertions that Trump was Putin's puppet. And it's especially true of those members of the press who shed credibility by committing to a narrative that didn't pan out. "Before the 2016 election, most Americans trusted the traditional media and the trend was positive, according to the Edelman Trust Barometer," Gerth notes. "Today, the U.S. media has the lowest credibility—26 percent—among forty-six nations, according to a 2022 study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism." That Reuters study is echoed by other studies finding minimal trust in the media. But distrust is unevenly spread. "Americans' trust in the media remains sharply polarized along partisan lines, with 70 percent of Democrats, 14 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of independents saying they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence," according to Gallup polling in October 2022. That divide is explained by the public perception that the media is not only biased, but out to push an agenda without regard for honesty. Americans "suspect that inaccuracies in reporting are purposeful, with 52 percent believing that reporters misrepresent the facts, and 28 percent believing reporters make them up entirely," a Gallup/Knight poll found in 2020. Journalistic shenanigans like the Russiagate debacle can only feed such concerns. Strictly speaking, there's nothing wrong with journalists having a point of view, so long as they're open about it and emphasize getting the story right. You're reading a libertarian publication right now; we do our best to confine our beliefs to interpreting facts that exist independent of our preferences. A partisan press is well-rooted in American history, from the newspapers that gleefully tormented the early presidents to the Republican and Socialist newspapers over which my grandparents screamed at each other. Efforts at "objectivity" in news coverage—however successful—didn't really become the norm until after World War II. And it's likely a passing norm as journalists re-embrace partisanship and find (or don't) supportive audiences. "A little more than half of the journalists surveyed (55 percent) say that every side does not always deserve equal coverage in the news," Pew Research reported last summer. "By contrast, 22 percent of Americans overall say the same, whereas about three-quarters (76 percent) say journalists should always strive to give all sides equal coverage." "Beyond Objectivity: Producing Trustworthy News in Today's Newsrooms," published last week by the Knight-Cronkite News Lab, found that "a growing number of journalists of color and younger white reporters, including LGBTQ+ people, believe that objectivity has become an increasingly outdated and divisive concept that prevents truly accurate reporting informed by their own backgrounds, experiences and points of view." Authors Leonard Downie Jr., formerly of the Washington Post, and Arizona State University journalism professor Andrew Heyward wisely recommend that post-objectivity newsrooms should be open with their staff and the public about their core beliefs. But, troublingly, they also suggest that newsroom leaders should "move beyond accuracy to truth." It's really hard to get to any sort of truth if you bypass accuracy. "My main conclusion is that journalism's primary missions, informing the public and holding powerful interests accountable, have been undermined by the erosion of journalistic norms and the media's own lack of transparency about its work," Gerth writes in the afterword to his Russiagate post mortem. "One traditional journalistic standard that wasn't always followed in the Trump-Russia coverage is the need to report facts that run counter to the prevailing narrative." If more of the journalists pursuing the Russiagate story had been scrupulous about getting the facts right, they might have noticed that a story that many wanted to be true was remarkably thin and, ultimately, inaccurate. Failing to perform due diligence did the media no favors when the facts finally emerged and further eroded public trust. Gerth calls for his colleagues to recommit themselves to "a transparent, unbiased, and accountable media" in order to win back trust and audiences that are increasingly siloed along partisan lines. "Unbiased" is probably a big ask given the inclinations of journalists themselves. It's not even obvious that it ever existed; the media giants that dominated for a few decades were likely more monolithic in their newsroom ideologies than they were truly neutral. But transparency and accountability should be expected of journalists who should be open about their methods and pursue stories, not results. In the end, no matter what ideologies or causes motivate journalists, nobody will put faith in us if we fail to get the story right. https://reason.com/2023/02/03/getting-trump-was-more-important-to-some-journalists-than-getting-the-story-right/

Considering the stink made about Senator Duffy and Rob Ford and Karlheinz Schreiber, I am a bit shocked that Canadian investigative reporters won't dig into massive drug smuggling and money laundering Harper allowed to take place on our soil - especially since the bulk of the black profits went to the yanks. Aside from the $3 million made by Harper, only Levesque and Nesbitt Burns (and the bikers who handled the nation-wide distribution) made the big bucks. But the end users of all this cocaine and heroin included our high school and uni students. Are we supposed to let Stephen just ride off into the sunset with a fat pension for deliberately ignoring and allowing the posioning of our kids - especially at the expense of Canadian investors? RE: http://AmericanFinancialGroupFraud.wordpress.com Harper did far more than just "look the other way". He made sure that two eye witnesses were rushed out of Canada by using his Justice and Immigration Ministries as political weapons. With these two guys in Canada Harper risks spending the balance of his life in prison, that is why Gorcyca and Ingvaldsen simply had to go. The media toyed with Rob Ford until the video turned up. There has, according to court records and sworn private investigator's report been both audio and video tapes about this huge drug ring for years. Why is the Canadian media afraid to make those tapes public or track down a copy of these seized book manuscripts; http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/off-topic-messages/91146-uncle-sam-seized-book-manuscripts-protect-jeb-bush.html Hrper went out of his way to approve a fake extradiiion of a former federal agent to keep his own ass out of jail. If the media will not hold our pols accountable on the big down and dirty stuff most foul, why bother with Rob Ford's drug addiction? Why does Canada, just like America punish whistle blowers instead of help them. We are becoming the 51st state and our media is asleep at the switch, or somehow standing to gin from all the corruption they deliberately ignore??? http://www.veteranstodayforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1229