According to G. Greenwald, the possibly next Brazilian President is unpopular, pro-business and corruption implicated. Is it true?
Greenwald lives in Brazil, he understands that Brazil is unusual in having a national media monopoly that was set up by the military, he was the first to be exposed to the Snowden NSA material, and he does not see the obvious connection?To Snowden and Greenwald and Wikileaks the action side of the NSA/CIA spying is the drones. The actual output, according to endless Senate Intelligence reports, is a form of media called disinformation. Drones affect at most thousands, the disinformation hundreds of millions. Greenwald and Snowden understand that anti-terrorism is the excuse, so what is the next logical step? That NSA/CIA in BRazil are conducting what Facebook is accused of, gathering data to better understand how to influence elections.Temer is nobody and corruption is eternal. The real issue is what the Trump administration has in store for Brazil and Venezuela.Greenwald used to work for the Guardian. For the last 3 years not only the Guardian but even the BBC covered the Brazil anti-corruption movement as a political effort to get rid of Lula and Dilma. They consistently pointed out that Temer was more corrupt than Dilma or Lula. This was not just Greenwald’s opinion.
Are conservatives intellectually honest?
Like J. Jackson mentioned, some are, and some aren’t.The ones who say they are in favor of “small government” are usually not. They are small government only for businesses, but I haven’t heard them be small government for social issues or military spending. Oftentimes, I’ve asked “small government” conservatives what their opinions on abortion and polygamy are. I get blank stares in return. Libertarians, on the other hand, are pretty consistent with wanting small government in all areas.However, many conservatives I have met can back up their points well, as shown on Quora. While I may disagree with them on quite a few things (I lean left), they are able to validate their claims with sources or explain why they believe certain policies will work.Glad I ran across your question! Let me know if you want me to clarify anything :)
When people discredit The New York Times as "fake news", what proof do they offer?
They don't offer proof. They don't offer an explanation as to why he consistently lies every other Twitter post either. They don't question. Specifically, they respond with a assertion that more often than not came from trump himself, and therein lies the problem.For the majority of trump supporters the typical response to anything trump does or says that's even remotely questionable is to deflect. Blanket statements seem to be the go-to response for almost anything.Actual Conversation I had with my OWN FATHER, A PUERTO RICAN, born on the island:Me: “So dad, what do you think about the government shutdown trump's called? It doesn't upset you you that he's promised to “own it,” but now it's all the Democrats fault"?“He's protecting our borders!” --"Well Democrats want that too we just don't think a wall is the answer.”“He’s putting America first and not worried about everyone else. It's about time we start worrying about ourselves!”-- “What about Puerto Rico, they’re Americans? He literally blamed them for the deaths and destruction caused by hurricanes, and FEMA’s contract ended with still 16,000 homes without power? Thats not really putting America first.“It doesn't matter how much good he does, Democrats will never give him credit. You guys are still mad cause Hillary lost!”“Ummm nope Pops, just mad that he doesn't keep his word, attacks veterans,(like yourself) and it doesn't seem to bother you.”“Ahhh Man, (*thick Brooklyn accent*) that's a bunch of bulls!#@! It's fake news!”Pop's you know I'm a Journalist right? So you're what? Alleging we all are part of a worldwide conspiracy to lie to the nation? All of us except Fox?*Throws up hands and stomps off…Guess we're done here. For today anyway. Can't say I'll ever allow this nonsense reasoning to continue without trying to force some type of critical thinking on his part. It's an act of love really. Ya, always a good chat with dad. Or any trump supporter for that matter.Nearly A Year After Maria, Puerto Rico Officials Claim Power Is Totally RestoredFootnotes http://Nearly A Year After Maria...
Why does Fox News largely ignore Bernie Sanders in favor of discussing Hillary Clinton?
Simple!The best way to make to damage a candidate's campaign is to make him invisible by not talking about him at all.Media did this to Ron Paul. Fox news was at the forefront. They evaded talking about him despite a lot of once in a century events went around his campaign, ranging from fistfights among supporters in primaries to a campaign tactic which was tried only a century ago.So much that in CNN debate, Anderson Cooper did anything in his power to evade letting Ron Paul talk, even on the topic of abortion. Paul had to force his way in, taking the turn by saying "Im the only qualified medical doctor in this debate. If I am not going to respond on abortion, who will".The discomfort was tangible in Cooper's face at that point.Same is the way Fox approaches this. By evading.Moreover, more talk about Clinton gives more coverage to her. That Fox talks bad about her gives an impression that she is 'good' for Democrat voters as well.GOP knows Hillary is easily beatable - she has a center-right stance which belongs to mid 90s, a period long past. For that reason, they know she cant mobilize voters with bothering to show up on election day, which will give immense power to the gerrymandering GOP already did for last House elections. Also she has A LOT of stuff which they can attack and make her look incompetent or dangerous, so is an easy game.Sanders is dangerous for backers of Fox. He talks about making corporations pay the taxes they owe, even increasing their taxes. He talks about single payer healthcare, free education and whatnot. Stuff which most developed countries have, but US shouldn't. So Fox is using the 'make invisible' tactic. Despite most of the media has moved to other stages of 'establishment backlash' as explained in Glen Greenwald's fantastic article:The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition