Tucker Carlson - The Deep State Exposed - Rise of Totalitarianism (1 Viewer)

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Yesterday, 22:58
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,101
There is an ominous foreshadowing raised by the public release of Hunter Biden's hard-drive that transcends Joe Biden's campaign for the Presidency. Like hitting a raw nerve, social media giants (Facebook and Twitter) immediately suppressed public access to the New York Post's article. Soon, much of the media followed suit and also resurrected the blame Russia narrative by asserting that the story was Russian disinformation.

Tucker, last night, discussed the meaning of this instantaneous and unified (orchestrated?) attack on the story. Two video clips available below. According to Carlson, what is incredibly unbelievable is that the media, supposedly the protectors of free-speech, are actively suppressing free-speech. Furthermore, Tucker pointed out that many members of the news media appeared totally uninterested in investigating this story, only in condemning it. That is counter to what a reporter is supposed to do, when a new story breaks, they are expected to go out and investigate it. Welcome to Orwell's Ministry of Truth.

Tucker: American media complicit in covering up Hunter Biden scandal

Tucker: American power centers align to get Joe Biden elected

Associated with this virulent response by the media, is the fact that the (fake) moderators at the Presidential debates have been openly anti-Trump. Moderators, are not supposed to be biased. Savannah Guthrie was particularly biased against Trump while George Stephanopoulos displayed pro-Biden bias in his interview. Open displays of blatant bias by the media under the umbrella of neutral examination are repugnant. (Of course blatant bias is acceptable when the interviewer has made that clear and the person being interviewed plus the audience is also aware of where the interviewer stands.)
 
Last edited:

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Yesterday, 22:58
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,101

The New York Post Reports: Meet your (Chinese) Facebook censors

There are at least half a dozen “Chinese nationals who are working on censorship,” a former Facebook insider told me last week. “So at some point, they [Facebook bosses] thought, ‘Hey, we’re going to get them H-1B visas so they can do this work.’”

The insider shared an internal directory of the team that does much of this work. It’s called Hate-Speech Engineering (George Orwell, call your office), and most of its members are based at Facebook’s offices in Seattle. Many have Ph.D.s, and their work is extremely complex, involving machine learning — teaching “computers how to learn and act without being explicitly programmed,” as the techy website DeepAI.org puts it.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 22:58
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
32,225
And the feckless Republicans in Congress continue their support of the suppression of free speech by refusing to subpoena the heads of the social media companies doing the suppression. I wonder if they think they're going to get another chance once they're rid of Trump.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Yesterday, 22:58
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,101

NPR slammed for dismissing coverage of Hunter Biden laptop scandal as a 'waste of time'

“We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don't want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions. And quite frankly, that's where we ended up, this was … a politically driven event and we decided to treat it that way,” Samuel said.
I have not gone back to specifically research NPR "reporting" concerning the Russian collusion stories, the failed Mueller investigation, and the inappropriate attempted impeachment of Trump; but these were all politically driven events not based on neutral sustainable facts, but cherry picked facts selected by Democrats verbally spinned to make Trump look bad.

The big question, this story raises. Where is the journalistic quest for the truth? Aren't journalists supposed to investigate stories to determine their validity? Instead, what we see here is a disinterest in even checking out the story. Based on the theme of this thread, this appears to be another story that is being suppressed since it runs counter to what the "deep state" wants the public to believe.
 
Last edited:

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 22:58
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
32,225
I used to watch NPR frequently. I had to stop once they took up the Russia collusion fantasy.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Yesterday, 22:58
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,101
Just ran across a reminder for this November 2019 story -> Bloomberg news service under fire for ban on investigating owner

After Michael Bloomberg confirmed his run for president on Sunday, the news service that bears his name said it would not “investigate” the billionaire or any of his Democratic rivals.

Micklethwait said reporters would still cover polls, policies and how the Bloomberg campaign is faring. But they will not do investigative stories on Bloomberg or any other Democratic contender. It will continue to investigate the Trump administration. (Emphasis Added)

I suppose the "good" news is that Bloomberg openly admitted to being one-sided in their reporting. Nevertheless, the claim can be made that the Bloomberg news service is one of the propaganda arms of the Democratic party and that it's "news" cannot really be trusted.
 
Last edited:

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Yesterday, 22:58
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,101
In a prior post, cited the article: NPR slammed for dismissing coverage of Hunter Biden laptop scandal as a 'waste of time'. I also remarked that: "I have not gone back to specifically research NPR "reporting" concerning the Russian collusion stories, the failed Mueller investigation, and the inappropriate attempted impeachment of Trump; but these were all politically driven events not based on neutral sustainable facts, but cherry picked facts selected by Democrats verbally spinned to make Trump look bad." I finally got around into examining NPR's investigation of the Kavanaugh nomination for the US Supreme Court and the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford.

In September 2019 NPR expressed no concern with investigating unsubstantiated accusations: Reporters Dig Into Justice Kavanaugh's Past, Allegations Of Misconduct Against Him. Ms. Ford did not present any evidence supporting her unsubstantiated accusations. She was also vague concerning details such as time and place. Moreover, the alleged incident apparently occurred (if it did at all) 35 years ago. Now Mr. Bobulinsk has come forward with actual current (and maybe still continuing) physical evidence, such as emails, and dates of meetings and NPR (plus other media outlets) don't dig into the story like they did with Kavanaugh!?!?! Reporters, especially those working for a supposedly non-partisan media outlet funded (in part) by US tax dollars should be foaming at the mouth to vet a Presidential candidate. Seems that this is another example where the "deep-state" has corrupted journalism to the detriment of the US public.
 
Last edited:

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 22:58
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
32,225
Since NPR has turned into a partisan tool, I think we should defund it. And if anyone wants to hold a defund the FBI rally, count me in. For the better part of my life, Sunday evenings were spent with 60 Minutes. Not any more. Leslie Stahl is reminding me more and more of Nancy Pelosi
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Yesterday, 22:58
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,101
Since NPR has turned into a partisan tool, I think we should defund it.
I have not done a headcount, but there appears to be a large number of non-profits that receive federal assistance (directly and/or indirectly) that are openly partisan in their support of a "leftist" (Democratic Party) agenda and should be de-funded.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 22:58
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
32,225
I keep having dreams that if Trump wins again, he'll forget about passing legislation and concentrate on cleaning house. Not much would make me happier than seeing the Department of Education defunded permanently and the top three levels of management at the FBI fired and the technical and worker bees transferred to the US Marshals and ICE and NSA and the FBI shut down entirely. We need the DOJ but cutting off its head would be a great first step. And then there's the possibility of moving as many departments out of DC and into the hinterlands as possible. This will minimize the effects of the deep state since everyone won't be in the same town. It would also be cheaper and much better for the country to have the feds spread around. Talk about a jobs program. Obviously, this is expensive since we probably own the DC buildings and they would end up empty but if we don't own them, then go for it. Certainly expansion should be done this way. Move a small department out of town and let a larger department expand into their space. This is right up Trump's alley. It'll be like playing Monopoly. We have great tele-conferencing tools so in-person meetings are no where near as important as they used to be.

I joined a group a few years ago called the Convention of States. They are working hard to convince the states to call a Convention so they can pass some new amendments to the Constitution. The major one being term limits but others come to mind such as line item veto and maybe even limiting the actual length of a bill. We all know that members no longer write bills. They are written by lobbyists and Congressional staff. Even worse is that they don't actually read them before they vote on them. So setting a limit on the number of words would go a long way toward impeding the current way that both the House and the Senate operate. If you limit the bills to ~ 100 pages, we won't have any more omnibus bills or debacles like the AHA which I think was close to 3000 pages and members had only one or two days to read it before voting. Which didn't really matter since they don't bother to read them anyway. They just rely on talking points to vote for or against. That's also where we get one of Nancy's more famous lines - "well you have to vote for the bill to pass it so you can see what's in it outside of the fog of you know...".
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Yesterday, 22:58
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,101
The uniform knee-jerk reaction of much of media acting as Orwellian Newspeak censors seems to be continuing without abatement. Tucker Carlson, on his show, interviewed Glenn Greenwald. Evidently, Greenwald made the cardinal sin of intending to write some negative comments concerning Joe Biden. The publication, The Intercept, demanded that remarks mentioning Biden be removed, so Greenwald resigned in protest. See the link below for a more complete description.

My Resignation From The Intercept

The same trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have engulfed the media outlet I co-founded, culminating in censorship of my own articles.


The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.

For those in the UK, you have not been left out. As a grim bonus on the topic of repression of speech, Tucker Carlson brought up the Controversy continues over Scotland's hate crime bill. I'm not familiar with this proposed legislation, but according to Carlson this legislation could potentially criminalize private speech in a private home. Whether true or not, I do not know. However, see the quote below. Of course, read the entire article.
"Conservative MSP Adam Tompkins subsequently questioned Yousaf on how you can commit an "offence of public order" in private, to which Yousaf replied that if the intent to stir up hatred is present in a private dwelling, then that could deserve criminal sanction."
Sadly, this reminds me of the "safe space" concept being pushed by the left here in the US. Anything the left believes to be offensive to them is considered "hate speech". There are efforts here in the US to make "hate speech" (as defined by the left) subject to criminal action.

Since posting this became available:
 
Last edited:

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Yesterday, 19:58
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,380
And the feckless Republicans in Congress continue their support of the suppression of free speech by refusing to subpoena the heads of the social media companies doing the suppression. I wonder if they think they're going to get another chance once they're rid of Trump.
I think there's just only so many things they can do at a time, to be fair, they didn't s.p. them because they came voluntarily. Trust me - there is no doubt they are going to follow up on this issue, strongly. I mean, that's my feeling.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 22:58
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
32,225
I think Canada has a similar hate speech law. Ben Shapiro mentioned it in a speech he was giving at a Canadian university a couple of years ago. He started by saying that he was probably going to be arrested but he ended up without being taken into custody:). Ben is my absolute favorite debater. If Trump could use a pinch hitter, I would pick Ben as his substitute. I have never listened to anyone who was so quick on his feet. Ben speaks very quickly and with a somewhat clipped style like the Britts so he can be difficult to listen to until you get used to his cadence.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Yesterday, 22:58
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
32,225
I'm going to think positive thoughts that Trump will win. There is no point depressing myself unless it becomes necessary. If Trump doesn't have a commanding lead by midnight on Tuesday, then I'll just start drinking.

Tucker has really been hot this week. Last night he was talking about the missing envelope contents and mentioned that UPS was the common carrier to which it had been entrusted. For those who don't watch Tucker and so wouldn't have heard what happened - Tucker is in California (rather than DC) for the interview with Bobalinksi and his team sent him some paperwork regarding the Biden corruption issue via UPS overnight. He got a text in the middle of the night from UPS saying that they had found the envelope addressed to him and it had been opened and was empty. They didn't know what happened. Apparently, yesterday, the thumbdrive that was in the envelope showed up in the NY sorting center and so they sent it to him. He had additional conversations with them and they have no clue what happened. So, a sorting center that handles millions of dollars worth of mail every day apparently has no cameras was the end of the story. If anyone knows this to be a false statement, perhaps we'll hear about it tonight:). They also claim to have tossed the original envelope so of course there was no way to get fingerprints or DNA off of it.

Let me add UPS to the list of companies that don't get my business. Their response was infuriating. Someone committed a crime and they willingly destroyed evidence. Not my kind of company. Add them to Twitter, Facebook and Google. At least there are alternatives to UPS.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Yesterday, 19:58
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,380
Yeah, the UPS thing was crazy ...

Side note, my entire life's experience with UPS has been very poor. They've messed up almost everything I've ever done with them.
FedEx is always my choice.
 

moke123

AWF VIP
Local time
Yesterday, 22:58
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
2,470
Someone should tell Tucker about email.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom