A particular reporter was working on the story (not "the media") and then when it broke, obviously it was going to get covered. To people who aren't insane CTers, that's not a coordinated attack. It's just how news works. When something newsworthy is discovered, it gets coverage.
Brand received multiple requests for comment
before the original piece dropped. They all knew in advance and published the same day.
YouTube demonetized him while the accusers were still anonymous. Forget due process, Brand was demonetized before even an accuser was named. Anonymous accusations are the standard for demonetization now? Others had have had open accusations from named accusers and not been demonetized. Selective standards aren't standards at all.
You cannot be that naive. Greenwald doesn't give a fuck about poor and working-class people, except to the extent that they give him money. Look at how he reacts to criticism. It's mostly just "you're all poor and beneath me."
Even if he didn't care (a statement with which I disagree), his reporting is in the interest of the poor and working class and against the interests of oligarchs and the security/surveillance state. He does more for them through his reporting than many others who pretend to advocate on their behalf.
I'm talking about how he has defended Russian hacking of private communications by private citizens and then disseminating the communications in order to help Trump. He suddenly reversed his position on gov't surveillance when it became convenient. Just as he suddenly reversed his position on invasions when that became convenient (though, of course, he did support the Iraq invasion when it happened and taunted critics by talking about how popular W was).
Russia never hacked the DNC. There is no evidence of that at all. In fact, there is strong evidence to the contrary. It was a leak from someone on site to wiki
leaks. The transfer speed of the leaked material would have been impossible over an Internet connection, however is consistent with speeds of a file transfer to a thumb drive or external hard drive. So unless it's your contention that Russians entered the DNC headquarters, hooked up an external drive, and walked right out with DNC correspondence, Russia was not the culprit.
Hillary lost to a game show host because she was a crappy candidate with a crappy campaign strategy that missed critical States in the Midwest. Get over it, everyone else already has.
Why are election rigging allegations only allowed when it's the Democrat Party making them? Why is Russia the scapegoat for everyone liberals don't like?
There's no "Democrat party" and that type of hackish stuff gives your game away. And, sure, he supports Trump. "Supporting" no-hope candidates who are trying to help Trump is a pretty transparent move.
This logic is how both parties have become such corporate controlled garbage. "Don't vote for who you agree with because they won't win," is the slogan of fools. If enough people vote for them, they can win and if not, at least secure enough votes to qualify for federal funding.
Look at the last election. Which senior citizen, misogynist, corporate stooge would you like? The Republican one or the Democrat one?
Americans are getting increasingly fed up with the duopoly and are beginning to look elsewhere for candidates who put the people above the donors. Right now, it's not really important who wins; the outcomes will be so similar as to make the choice meaningless between the two major parties. They're both trash.
As far as calling them the Democrat Party, that's to avoid confusion. They are anything but Democratic. Having a system in primaries where there are that many super-delegates effectively negates the will of the people. This was the case with the Sanders campaigns. So many of the super-delegates publicly pledged to Clinton
before the primary elections in their states that Sanders had little to no chance of securing the nomination.
Look no further than the Nevada primary 2016 to see blatant examples of a rigged primary. Look no further than the shadow app that gave an entire primary state mayor Pete, for example. Look at how they kept changing the debate requirements in 2020 to exclude candidates who critiqued the establishment of the party.
If the Democrat Party was actually Democratic, they would let the voters decide the winner of their primary and make that winner the nominee.
The opposite is the case. The DNC won a court case where their argument was that as a private corporation, they can pick the nominee themselves, even if it is directly contrary to the will of the voters..... And it has happened before.
Tomato, tomato. Private citizens being allowed to criticize the gov't is exactly what freedom of speech is, but you opposed it and pretended that it's an *pro* freedom of speech position, as if the First Amendment were designed to protect the gov't from criticism.
Corporate censorship is not free speech. If a corporation enjoys liability protection for the discourse of others on their platform, then they shouldn't be interfering in the conversation or censoring anyone.
They are not publishers, they are platforms. Allowing them censor or suppress public discussion goes directly against the principle of free speech.
Freedom of speech is more than just the first amendment. It is a core principle of fundamental human rights in a democracy. It is a right for individual people. I am a person. Twitter is not person.
What makes this much worse is that soooo much of the censorship was directly at the behest of government officials, including Trump.
Not only was the first amendment violated, but the individual right and the principle of free speech and expression.
Um, a particular website isn't the same as Internet access, genius. Saying that the gov't should be able to force websites to meet their standard of "neutrality" in order to have freedom of speech is just saying that sites shouldn't have freedom of speech.
Firstly, I never said anything about neutrality. I don't care what the staff at Twitter's political biases are. However, if they aren't going to act as a platform, they shouldn't enjoy the liability protections of section 230. Leave that liability shield for those who aren't trying to edit, alter, censor and/or suppress the public discourse and let Twitter be a publisher if they really want to act as the public's editor.
Your argument seems to be "they're a private company, they can do what they want". How very 90s Republican of you. Stuff like this is why I say modern liberals have no principles.
Censorship of legally protected speech is wrong, no matter who is doing it. Period. Full Stop.
But once again, you fail to address the fact that a substantial percentage of censorship and suppression was done at the behest of the state. You really should read Missouri vs Biden. Don't worry, the Trump administration is brought up in the suit aswell for it's time in government requesting censorship. It will help you realize how dangerous a censorship regime we currently have in this country.
The government is not allowed to use private companies as a proxy to do things directly prohibited by the Constitution... Its illegal.
Do you have any principles besides just whatever hurts the "Democrat party" is good? You have defended gassing people, sexual assault, lying, and more.
Like I said, I hate BOTH major political parties. I was a Democrat until 2016. I have just come to learn how little difference their actually is between the two.
In the 90s, the Republicans were openly pro war, pro corporate, anti worker, pro security state and generally more corrupt. From the early 90s until now, both parties have been bought off by the same interests to the point of being nearly indistinguishable from one another.
I will say one nice thing about the Democrats, since you seem to think I am incapable. A bill recently passed that prohibited corporations from illegal union busting practices. If a corporation is caught doing anything illegal to squash attempts to form a labor union, the union is automatically formed without a vote.
While the Biden administration has failed on damn near every single campaign promise, this anti-union busting legislation is probably one of the best pieces of legislation that has passed for American workers in the past 20 years. I'll give credit where it's due, its just unfortunate that there's so little deserved credit to be given to American elected officials of either major party.
