Do you consider Thom Hartmann a Democratic leader/figure/supporter?

[Akamai]

I sure do.

He brought us Bernie Sanders, sure as hell supported Hillary in the lest election one the primary was settled. Regularly has Keith Ellison on his show, as well as progressive House Member Mark Pocan.

Has had Jimmy Carter on his show about 4 years ago telling us that in the US the amount of money in politics has made us into an oligarchy.

Supports democratic values day in and day out against a tide of right-wing mouthpieces.

He has been uniformly supportive of democratic ideals, plays the words of FDR often, as well as Harry Truman, and also plays the w4rods of teddy Roosevelt and Ike to support democratic causes.

From my perspective, I think there are two general reasons for some people to vilify Hartmann:

1. That he supported Bernie Sanders early on (even though he strongly supported Hillary after the primaries were settled, and he often played Bernie's soundbite that "Hillary on her worst day is 100 times better than Trump on his best day." He informed many, many people that to vote for a person other than Hillary was to throw your vote away. (He was correct, of course.)

and

2, That some people know how effective Thom is in reaching the progressives in the country and they are flooding the zone here so people will not hear his issues, will not hear his voice. Thom is not about personalities but about issues, and so is Bernie, so is the progressive caucus, etc. And so are most of us.

Personal attacks are cheap, and calling him a traitor, etc., will not help our cause.

Listen to him yourself if you have any doubts.

[David__77]

1. It's been over a decade since I listened to him.

I liked him.

[Akamai]

8. Me too. He is a very decent person, thoughtful and caring - here in Portland, Oregon I remember

thanking him publicly for his views and I broke into tears at being able to do so.

[calimary]

45. I liked him, too.

Listened to him as often as I could, while driving. But the station made changes and moved people around, so he wasn't on in L.A. anymore. Listening to him made me feel smarter.

He's on RT? That I don't like.

[yardwork]

97. He's promoting foolish Putin propaganda now.

He's now broadcasting on RT and promoting false information.

It's sad.

[Akamai]

132. What wrong information is he promoting?

[yardwork]

144. You know full well. The information was posted in great detail in your other thread.

Your little game is obvious.

[Hun Joro]

135. He isn't promoting any such thing. He's on RT under the condition that he has control

over his material.

[FreepFryer]

147. He most certainly is promoting false Russian propaganda. (n/t)

[Hun Joro]

149. Care to elaborate?

[FreepFryer]

186. Sure.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9428778

[Trial_By_Fire]

295. So far, you have not proved anything.

Tell me specifically what Hartmann said that are 'Putin lies'.

Don't link to an entire thread and expect that to be proof....

[FreepFryer]

298. "Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says No" Read it, I don't spoonfeed the unwilling.

Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

Western leaders never pledged not to enlarge NATO, a point that several analysts have demonstrated. Mark Kramer explored the question in detail in a 2009 article in The Washington Quarterly. He drew on declassified American, German and Soviet records to make his case and noted that, in discussions on German reunification in the two-plus-four format (the two Germanys plus the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France), the Soviets never raised the question of NATO enlargement other than how it might apply in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR).

When one reads the full text of the Woerner speech cited by Putin, it is clear that the secretary general’s comments referred to NATO forces in eastern Germany, not a broader commitment not to enlarge the Alliance.

FORMER SOVIET PRESIDENT GORBACHEV’S VIEW

We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

[Trial_By_Fire]

299. But, what exactly did Hartmann say that your post 'proves'.

Be specific...

What 'Putin lies' did Hartmann repeat? Specifically what did Hartmann say and provide a link to prove what Hartmann said.

O

[FreepFryer]

301. Read Akamai's original post. I'm not spoon feeding you what you already know and ignore.

[Trial_By_Fire]

304. Ok, no proof means your post is worthless...

[FreepFryer]

307. Plenty of proof provided, your dishonesty & obtuseness is revealing and isn't fooling anyone. (n/t)

[FreepFryer]

311. PS you're not entertaining, so don't expect a response. (n/t)

[The Wielding Truth]

156. I've watched him on RT and he seems the same to me. It's weird when Russians run a station and not

everything is propaganda. Kind of like Fox, huh?

I consider Thom a Progressive Social Democrat. I consider myself that, too.

[marlakay]

166. I like Thom

And listened for years not lately. Of course he was for Bernie he had him on his show every Friday for many years before anyone even thought of running him for pres.

I think someone is doing a great job dividing our big tent and if we can't find a way to unite we are going to be stuck with the crazies running our country.

Reminds me of a bad marriage where both people are too busy blaming each other to talk calmly and settle their differences. Looking for faults and things they don't have in common instead of what they do.

[snowy owl]

237. Amen to that. We need to unite.

[sandensea]

277. Hear, hear.

While disagreements should be discussed, letting the small differences divide us is exactly what Cheeto and his gangsters want.

[RandySF]

2. No he is not.

[SHRED]

3. I concur

He is one of us. Anyone who actually listens and understands what he is saying knows this.
All this "RT" hair-on-fire nonsense is self inflicted.
I have my suspicions who fuels this rift.

[Akamai]

6. Yup! Yup! SHRED I have my suspicions too. Thanks for your views.

[SalviaBlue]

127. I agree.

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. No! His continued presence on Russia Today settled that once and for all. n/t

[Akamai]

11. You ever listen to his show? to his topics? to his guests?

[Tarheel_Dem]

30. Haven't listened to the blowhard in over ten years. I know his schtick. n/t

[Akamai]

134. Ah -- you just know things! Funny how nationally

known Dems -- like Ellison, Pocan, and others -- are regulars on his show. Rev. Barbour of Morals Monday's, climate expert Hansen, etc., have been interviewed time after time.

Voter suppression is an ongoing topic, no one understands the bankruptcy of austerity policy as well as Thom.

Etc.

I will be driving an hour to work in 30 minutes and listening to his podcast from yesterday.

[Tarheel_Dem]

236. Have fun. I know why Ellison is well received in TH land. I'll leave it at that.

[earthshine]

5. I listen to Thom often.

A true intellectual.

He is absolutely loyal to the Dem party and to progressive values.

Like so many of us, he has difficulty when those two loyalties are in conflict.

[Akamai]

9. Yup! Yup! Absolutely loyal to the Dem party and to progressive values.

And I agree with you about your second observation too, but given any choice between Democrat and Republican we know where he will stand.

With the Democrat every single time.

[earthshine]

13. I totally respect how he played it down the middle between Bernie and Hillary,

even though Bernie is his long-standing buddy.

So what if he is on RT? He pays them for air time, not the other way around.

But other than Papantonio and Hartmann, RT is tough to listen to. I can hear the pro-Putin cheerleading.

[Akamai]

22. I didn't know he paid for air time there. That sure should change the perception of many.

And I sure agree with you about how he played it with Bernie and Hillary. Straight down the middle.

But seems to me that many people are replaying the last election and are faulting Thom.

but in many ways, I think he is one of our best hopes for the future.

Aside from Thom, who else?

[earthshine]

38. I wish I had the reference for "Thom pays RT." I read it recently.

Hartman is not an employee of RT.

There are other good people to listen to. I like Ring of Fire. Randi Rhodes is very entertaining, but an acquired taste.

Rachel Maddow used to be my favorite, until she started talking in circles. It's like she got hit in the head a few years ago, and her style of speech changed. When she talks this way, obviously, she is obviously trying to fill a 20-min time slot with only 10 mins of info.

I also happen to like Cenk Uygur. He's a very rational thinker and speaker. But most of his TYT shows are so full of pop-culture fluff, I don't bother with them. Cenk was full-on Hillary after the primary. His biggest meme is wanting money out of politics.

[Akamai]

39. I like Cenk too but many people here say they consider

him "alt-right' which I think is nonsense.

I do think that the person closest to Thom is Amy Goodman.

[earthshine]

57. Oh, I do enjoy Democracy Now.

Amy's is a morning show, and the videos are ready on YouTube early in the day.

She packs a lot in with her "Headlines" segment. She doesn't waste the viewer's time. The show is truly world-wide in scope.

Amy and Thom are different in their styles. Amy is more of an expository journalist. Thom is more of a "pundit," which means he speaks a lot from personal opinion in addition to the facts. Thom often uses global perspectives, as well, but more in terms of how something affects the US.

Being hosted by RT, we cannot expect that Thom will go off on a diatribe about the evils of Putin.

For the same reason, MSNBC's liberal pundits will never criticize matters of "net neutrality," because they are employees of Comcast.

[bdamomma]

105. love Amy Goodman

Democracy Now is a no fluff news show I love watching her daily shows, always different and her guests are very good.

[George II]

228. He too is being funded by the right, $4M from Buddy Roehmer, for example.

[womanofthehills]

249. Buddy Roehmer has joined with some progressives with a basic goal of -

"the removal of money's influence on politics"

[Vetteguy]

232. He is not Alt-right he is alt-left

but gets financed by a GOP donor.

[earthshine]

193. I have a link!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Picture_with_Thom_Hartmann


"The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann is an American TV talk/news show owned, hosted and produced by political commentator and radio host Thom Hartmann, and Hartmann's production company (which also produces his radio show), Mythical Research, Inc., and is represented by WYD Media, Inc. The Big Picture started in 2008 in Portland, Oregon, as a half-hour TV show and was originally syndicated exclusively on Free Speech TV.

Over the next few years, more community TV stations and cable systems picked it up, and Hartmann moved to Washington, DC, taking both his radio show and The Big Picture with him. With that move, he expanded the show to an hour, and also licensed the show to RT, partially in exchange for use of their television studios and facilities. While the show carries the RT bug, it is entirely owned by Hartmann's company, which has contractual editorial control over the program. The editorial staff of the show are employees of Hartmann's company, while the TV production staff work for RT."

[mcar]

294. A wiki entry does not prove that Hartmann is not paid by RT

[earthshine]

296. I am not going to *prove* anything to you. You present no evidence to the contrary.

My, people really don't like Thom. Well, too bad for you.

[mcar]

302. Can't prove a negative

The claim has been made here that Hartman gets no money from RT. It is up to the claimants to prove it.

[earthshine]

314. You make an accusation without evidence. Further, you do not seem to understand binary logic.

You are asking me to prove the negative.

Spew whatever baseless crap you want. Your opinions are of no consequence to me.

[mcar]

317. K

[lapucelle]

327. I taught logic mcar.

Last edited Wed Aug 9, 2017, 10:42 PM - Edit history (1)

The poster you're responding to actually provides evidence to support your claim. He didn't read carefully.

...[Hartmann] expanded the show to an hour, and also licensed the show to RT , partially in exchange for use of their television studios and facilities.

"Partially"...how very interesting. Studio time was only a partial payment for the license. There must be something additional going on between Mr. Hartmann and RT. Thom needs to be more transparent.

Not only have you provided evidence of payment, but even if you hadn't, his argument would still be dubious because the absence of evidence for one claim does not necessarily prove the validity of the other claim.

As for the snark about "binary logic", Boolean reasoning involving the disjunctive or is tricky and best left to people who understand these things. Here's the argument:

If A then either B or C.
A is true.
B is false.
Therefore C must be true.

There's a logical flaw in your responder's thinking. He assumes without evidence that B and C (paid and unpaid) are the only two possibilities. There's a third option: that Thom is paying RT to allow him to broadcast.

If that sounds improbable, then you should read this post from a Hartmann apologist:

[Thom]doesn't get paychecks from them....he pays them for time on the network.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017451788#post5

The snarky poster is committing the fallacy of bifurcation by excluding third possibilities.

He is right about somethinf though. Somebody here doesn't understand binary logic.

[wasupaloopa]

115. He never "played it down the middle between Bernie and Hillary." I stopped listening to him during

the primary. He had Bernie Bros calling in one after the other. It was disgusting the things they said about Hillary.

Pretty much like the things said here.

[earthshine]

172. That's like your opinion, man, and a highly incorrect one.

Maybe you just tuned in once at the wrong time. Thom has no love of militant political types.

When people write something as absurd as this, I put them on ignore so I never have to deal with them again.

I will not be responding to you -- ever.

[wasupaloopa]

195. Be my guest put me on ignore it won't mess up my day

[mythology]

216. It's amusing to me that people make such an ado

Does stomping your feet and telling people you're ignoring them make you feel tough or something?

[earthshine]

220. No, but it spares me from accidentally wasting my time reading inane opinions.

If someone states something so blatantly stupid, I have no reason to read them again.

You can put me on ignore. I'm fine with it.

[PoliticAverse]

266. If you don't want to ever read someone's posts, it is _you_ who should put them on ignore. n/t

[earthshine]

291. _You_ obviously have not been paying attention.

That is exactly what happened. I put a user on ignore, and another user didn't like it, and maybe _you_ don't either.

Thanks for _your_ input. Please read threads as a whole before responding.

[PoliticAverse]

312. ...

[earthshine]

355. I think you are a bot.

Your comment is out of entirely out of context.

[brush]

116. But why is he on RT? Is it money? He certainly can find another outlet for his show.

That simple fact casts doubt on his credibility. He needs to explain that.

It bothers me, just as trump and the repugs' Russian connections do. What is it fashionable or ok now to cozy up to our adversary?

[womanofthehills]

248. You know lots of people watch RT - maybe it's good to have some dems on RT

It just financial. Tom has 100% control of content. RT is in 85 million households in US, and 700 million in over 100 countries. So you think dems should not reach out to all these people?

[brush]

335. Sounds like infiltration to me. So now it's fashionable to be on Putin's payroll

How do you spell naive, and tentacles?

[PSPS]

7. He's DU's favorite charlatan but I can't stand his RT shtick

[Akamai]

10. Charlatan? That's a personal attack. Anything more specific? Obama was accused of

misrepresenting as well. And so was Hillary -- but remember her going toe to toe regarding Benghazi and the email attacks?

[PSPS]

25. The question was about Hartmann, not Obama or Clinton

I just answered the question. I have no illusions of changing any fan's mind.

Hartmann is a charlatan because he pretends to be something he isn't.

1. He portrays himself as honest, yet he personally reads ad copy promoting gold scams as to imply he, himself, has "invested in gold." While he's not alone in doing this (Schultz, Rhoads and others are also guilty,) that's no excuse.

2. His show is supposedly a "talk show," but it's pretty much Thom listening to himself. Usually, a caller starts a conversation with a sentence or two, then gets cut off while Hartmann goes on and on, then on to the next call (or ad for a nefarious product or service.)

3. He portrays himself as a student of history, yet he's very bad at it. This is especially true when he recounts the disastrous Reagan era. The permanent damage done to our country and society by Reagan stands on its own, thank you very much, without going on minutes-long rants with erroneous dates and sequences of events that don't properly connect. He consistently does this in many areas, not just the Reagan era. Sure, it may "sound good" but, to someone who knows history, such things undermine one's impression of the speaker's intelligence.

Those are my top three beefs with the guy. I'm sure his mother loves him, he has his fans, and he's making a good living with his show and selling his books to his fans. But I don't listen anymore because, aside from the above, I just don't learn anything. He's just another cog in the "outrage industry" that broadcast media has become.

[Akamai]

41. So no one who sells product can be a liberal? How do you

expect him to make a living?

About point two, as was said above (by someone criticizing him) Thom does give a lot of on air minutes to others.

And 3., I think he is very good at pointing out the harm done by Reagan. Who does it better, and with more facts?

[PSPS]

55. You're a Hartmann fan, and that's fine.

Like I said, I'm not trying to change any fan's mind. That usually doesn't happen.

As for how to make a living, how about doing it honestly without trying to trick people into buying into scams? How about not being on Putin's payroll?

And my point is that he is very BAD at "pointing out the harm done by Reagan." Hartmann makes up "facts" when he doesn't have to. This just reveals either his ignorance of history or some nefarious motive. He gets dates wrong and the sequence of events wrong, and then tries to relate them to each other. Even someone with a rudimentary knowledge of the era could "do it better." It wasn't that long ago.

Anyway, that's it from me. I'm not trying to pillory you and I know everyone has their fans. I just don't happen to be a fan of people like Hartmann. But it's OK that you are.

[whathehell]

68. Lol...Dishonest much?

By calling him a "charlatan" ( with NOTHIING to back up the claim) you are clearly doing that.

[TooStrong]

148. Do you have examples of him making up facts on the history of Reagan?

Because it's easy to tear someone down if you just say they are wrong without any proof.

[womanofthehills]

250. So you think RT should go into 85 million households in America and have no progressive viewpoint

[Fla Dem]

361. More propaganda.

If Russia Today is Moscow’s propaganda arm, it’s not very good at its job

By Amanda Erickson January 12, 2017

<<<Snip>>>

As journalist Julia Ioffe tweeted, RT is famous for fudging its ratings. A 2015 investigation by the Daily Beast found that the channel aggressively exaggerates its success, writing that the site is “pretending that it has had a far bigger impact in the Western media sphere than it has, particularly online.” (These findings were based on documents leaked by former employees at RIA Novosti, a separate and rival Russian state-funded media venture that was defunded in 2015. RT disputed them all. In a statement to the Daily Beast, spokeswoman Anna Belkina said, “The claims made about RT’s operations bear no resemblance to reality.”)

The same investigation found that the channel lied in claiming its English-, Spanish- and Arabic-language broadcasts reached 630 million people worldwide. “In reality, that number is just the theoretical geographical scope of the audience,” the Daily Beast wrote. It noted that RT was not listed in Nielsen ratings for the U.S. for 2012, which means it didn't garner an audience of more than 18 million households. Ditto the cable news channels rankings, meaning that, according to the documents, “the average daily viewership of RT programs in the U.S. does not reach [30,000] people.” RT is still largely absent from cable news rankings in 2015.

<<<Snip>>>

“The audience is extremely small,” said Ellen Mickiewicz, a Duke University-based expert on Russian media who's studied RT closely. She noted that the channel did not make it into a ranking of the top 94 cable news channels in the United States (the lowest ranking channel in that survey had less than 1 percent of total cable news viewers) and that just 1 percent of the videos it posts on YouTube are political in nature.*

More>>>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/12/if-russia-today-is-moscows-propaganda-arm-its-not-very-good-at-its-job/?utm_term=.2ab0febd2823

[George II]

150. Weren't gold dealers big sponsors on Fox News and many right wing radio talk shows?

I know Glen Beck was hawking gold for years.

[MrsCoffee]

158. That poster loves his whataboutisms it seems.

Had a whole thread of them yesterday too.

Nope, no propaganda here, nothing to see folks.

[Willie Pep]

12. I have never seen any reason to doubt his liberal credentials.

He did support Clinton in the election which probably angered some of the people on the left who refused to vote for her, so he likely alienated some people who followed him.

I know he is on RT but has Hartmann said or done anything that would put his liberal Democratic credentials in question?

[earthshine]

14. A lot of Bernie people were very pissed that Thom wouldn't take sides in the primary. nt

[Akamai]

18. I have never heard him put his liberal credentials at jeopardy -- indeed, he regularly advances

liberal/progressive thought in effective and incredibly insightful ways.

For example, no one has a more developed economic policy than he does, one pointing out the Republican economic malfeasance. He is a tireless worker for climate change, doing movies with Leonardo DiCaprio and having climate scientists like Hansen, and also the head for 350 on his show.

Tirelessly focusing on health care, on a livable wage, a livable planet, etc.

The only person who is in competition with him for the most effective progressive/liberal is the great goddess, Amy Goodman - and that is a great category to be in.

[orleans]

15. he's been on the radio during my drive time lately

so i've been TRYING to listen to him

his callers wander and roam and he lets them do that--the topic is vague or nonexistent

he (along with his callers) has been driving me crazy as i'm driving.

i change the station.

that's my problem with him these days

[Akamai]

20. Got anyone better than he? maybe you're too critical. Me, too, John from Mineapolis has

the longest sentences ever, but I have learned to put up with him because his ideas are good. several other right-wing callers are allowed on and Thom shows us how to answer them. (One was a caller saying that FDR knew the fleet would be attacked Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen. Evidence being that the US government had broken Japanese Code Purple by the time Amelia Earhart was downed in the Pacific. Thom is interested in the truth of things, but he knows the truth has a liberal bent.)

Seriously - anyone better than Thom? I will give the broadcaster a listen-to if you give me a name.

[phylny]

28. Oh, thank goodness - I thought I was the only one who noticed John gets quite a long

time on air - and never stops to take a breath of air

[Akamai]

48. You bet! Run on sentences that lasts for many minutes. But

Thom is better than I would be and allows him to make his points.

Although I think he could make them much, much faster. When he is on I am often yelling at my podcast but after a few seconds, I realize that I am glad Thom puts him on.

Even the right-hand Hobart can be informative.

[whathehell]

69. Short answer?....No...He's been the leading lefty talker for years & there's a reason for that

He's the best.

[Akamai]

131. My views too. He is willing to be asked any question (except

personal and private questions, I believe).

His memory regarding important issues is amazing. His articles on Truthout.org are incredibly important. And he is incredibly kind to callers, especially those in terrible circumstances.

[whathehell]

155. Yes, he is, and he handles virtually all of them with calm and intelligence. n/t

[orleans]

129. i always loved randi rhodes

but haven't heard her in years.
and, while people have said "she's back" i don't think she's on the radio station i get in my car

[womanofthehills]

253. Randi is back - you can buy a podcast or livestream on Facebook, YouTube, or randirhodes.com M-F

http://randirhodes.com/

Podcasts are about $7 a month. I podcast Randi so I can listen on my iphone anywhere - anytime. I also podcast Rachel.

OMG! Randi has been great lately. I love her interviews with Malcolm Nance. I like Tom Hartman, but Randi has more personality for me.
Randi, like Rachel, goes over the very latest news of the day.

[OnDoutside]

297. And also live on YouTube 4pm EST.

[Kurovski]

16. I do. I listen to him on WCPT in Chicago.

He was a great DUer and contributed a lot in the early days of this website.

It's easy enough to ignore his reports about Russia, if his working for RT is what bothers an individual.

He's an actual progressive.

[Akamai]

23. He also publishes often on Alternet and other progressive venues.

Great and informative pieces! Timely too!

[pnwmom]

47. His presence on that network validates it as a source of news. He's wrong to do that.

It's a Russian government propaganda network and he's allowing himself to be used by them.

[Akamai]

49. Alternet is Russian?

[pnwmom]

50. Are you belng deliberately obtuse? I was responding to a person who mentioned his being on RT.

I don't care about him being on Alternet.

[Kurovski]

54. When consuming news we have to work our way through

many varieties of propaganda.

You must be aware of that. Washington Post is owned by Bezos, many sources are pro-war and will agitate for it, etc.

It goes on. We slog through it, hopefully aware.

I don't agree that he's wrong to do it, any more than when a reporter waxes poetic over the power of bombs. We can figure out what they're on about. I like that Thom is a strong progressive voice. Would that MSNBC agreed with me. But why should he waste his talents just because some network honchos don't think he's pretty enough...or whatever.

Say, what happened to octafish? Anyone know?

[pnwmom]

58. I can't believe any thinking Democrat would compare the WA Post to RT.

RT is carefully crafted by Putin to pull the gullible in. And it's succeeding.

[Kurovski]

59. As is the Washington Post carefully crafted.

And so are your insults, so we are done here, pnwmom.

[pnwmom]

60. The WA Post isn't part of a state-owned propaganda network and its reporting

has been some of the best in the country since the primaries began.

It is very curious that anyone, other than Putin or a Putin-proponent, would compare them.

[emulatorloo]

206. Yup, Trump told us WAPO is fake news so it must be true!

[Kurovski]

246. That's cute, and not the full story. I also read the Washington Post

all the while knowing that it will not contain much that the CIA and the world's second richest man will not want to hear. That would be right-leaning Libertarian Bezos who owns it and also has lucrative contracts with the CIA.


http://www.alternet.org/media/owner-washington-post-doing-business-cia-while-keeping-his-readers-dark

[emulatorloo]

280. Nothing cute about regurgitating Trump talking points

Or alt-right CT on DU. But to each his own.

FWIW you might have better luck peddling that stuff in the fevered bowels of Reddit.

[Vetteguy]

234. Not by the state it isn't.

[lapucelle]

162. I can't believe that any thinking Democrat

would characterize Hartmann as a Democratic leader.

[yardwork]

103. Hartmann gets his facts wrong constantly.

[womanofthehills]

256. What are some facts he got wrong????

[Akamai]

259. What facts did he get wrong? (I agree with you.)

[MuseRider]

379. **an aside**

God it is good to see you again!

I have no idea what happened to octafish, I wish I did but I have stopped paying much attention to that, too many good people have vanished for one reason or another.

[WoonTars]

183. The other alternative of course is that without RT he wouldn't be on the air at all.

So that's not really an option is it?

[pnwmom]

198. Anyone can go on youtube. He has options. n/t

[womanofthehills]

255. If Hartman is on youtube, we won't be able to hear him in our car

In NM, I can tune him in M - F while driving.

[pnwmom]

257. You could tape it. Nothing he says is that time-sensitive. n/t

[emulatorloo]

209. TYT, etc distribute on YouTube. Thom could hire some TV students and produce a polished show.

Final Cut Pro and After Effects for Post production.

Have a buddy who has a one man shop who does documentaries and event videos. His stuff is top-notch and looks way better than anything I've seen on RT.

So yeah he could do that. I like Thom and wish he'd get off of Russia Today. It is a shitty brand, but that's totally up to him, not me.

[bluepen]

17. No. For many of the reasons in the thread you started last night

about Thom.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9428778

[Akamai]

27. wow! You are being SO Specific here! (Warning - the former was sarcastic.)

Any specifics?

[bluepen]

89. Absolutely.

I'll be happy to (even though it was done at length last night).

As I stated in my reply in the Thom Hartmann thread you started last night, the guy disseminates bad information. Basic, easily researched and supported (or in Thom's case, thoroughly debunked) information, as in the example I posted last night. He either doesn't know, doesn't care, or he does it deliberately in order to push an agenda. My bet is on the latter, and the reasons are covered in the next paragraph.

As many other people pointed out in the Thom Hartmann thread you started last night, he pushes Putinist lies and propaganda. He's paid by the Kremlin's propaganda network to tell us how wrong the entire West is about Putin's Russia, and how misunderstood Putin's Russia is, and how Putin's Russia is just trying to preserve its rightful place in the world as a thriving, sovereign nation. Which, of course, it's a complete and laughable lie to anyone a) not being paid to believe otherwise (like Thom), or b) just a run-of-the-mill ignorant person who may or may not be a fan of Thom's or any of the other radio/tv people cashing checks written by the disinformation department of the Russian security services.

It seems most of Thom's defenders are absolutely blinded to the fact that he's a Kremlin propagandist. Now, to be fair to Thom, it's not necessarily his fault that many of these people are engaging in this kind of sycophantic adoration. Maybe some of them are being willfully ignorant, but there are probably some who are simply innocently oblivious -- but both are very eager to promote Thom between fits of fawning over how spectacular he is, so what does he care? Those are the only two options. I won't and can't say which of those two groups you're in.

I don't expect you to agree with any of this, or even acknowledge that any of this is true. (After all, according to Thom's Putinist method of persuasion, what is truth and what are lies if the desired outcome is achieved? But you asked, and I answered. As evidenced by your numerous threads full of glorifying remarks about the guy, you're a die-hard Thom Hartmann loyalist. Carry on.

[Akamai]

260. what are the Putin lies and propaganda he promotes? You have specific quotes?

[bluepen]

274. You're being deliberately obtuse.

There are posts throughout this thread you started about Thom Hartmann, last night's thread you started about Thom Hartmann, and, from what people are saying, other threads you've started in praise of Thom Hartmann, detailing the information you are now pretending not to be aware of. Honestly, it's ridiculous.

We get it. You are a major Thom Hartmann fan and you absolutely can't stand and willfully ignore any and all criticism of him.

You can claim victory here, raise your Thom Hartmann flag, do a dance, whatever. What I'm not going to do is get into a seemingly endless back and forth with you, in which you refuse to acknowledge negative information about Thom. You did it last night, you're doing it again today, and based on this odd behavior, there's no reason to think you won't continue doing this today or any time in the future as you continue your quest to publicly display your loyalty to Thom Hartmann. It's weird, but hey, keep doing it if that's what you need to do.

You get the #1 Thom Hartmann Fan badge. Congratulations! Worship on. 🇷🇺

[Akamai]

278. wow! you really are dodging my question -- let me repeat, what specific information do you have?

If you don't have any specific proof at all then you are making stuff up.

[bluepen]

284. Yep. Just all made up!

Maybe you meant to call it "fake news" or "fake _______ (fill in the blank)."

Your undying dedication to ignoring information makes you sound just like the guy who calls any and all information he doesn't like "fake."

Last time: The information you're asking for has been posted. Numerous times. On multiple days. In multiple threads.

You choose to ignore it EVERY TIME because it disturbs your infatuation with Thom Hartmann.

Rational people reading this know that's the case.

That's your problem.

[Akamai]

325. I think rational and objective people are wondering why -- if you

have proof of Thom's wrongdoing -- you do not share it.

Talk is less than cheap, especially if it is part of a false accusation against one our great progressive proponents.

[FreepFryer]

341. Nope bluepen is right - your posts reek of bad faith - evasive, disingenuous & repetitive. (n/t)

[George II]

107. This person started three or four last night on Thom Hartmann...

...I have no use for Thom Hartmann.

I put him in the same category as TYT, Packman, etc. A lot of words, very little substance.

[bluepen]

276. Yep. They have some kind of weird obsession

with Thom Hartmann. Absolutely bizarre.

[Akamai]

326. I have some obsession with the truth and supporting someone

who is greatly advancing progressive causes.

[FreepFryer]

342. By ignoring other users, and repeatedly ignoring their replies to your inanity. (n/t)

[Akamai]

343. By asking for proof of perfidy -- we believe in a jury system in this country

and will not convict without good evidence.

Why do you convict without good evidence now?

[FreepFryer]

344. You're in contempt. You've asked over and over, and ignored the answer. (n/t)

[FreepFryer]

347. There is nothing in your comments worthy of my time or reply - ciao!

[rogue emissary]

19. Don't see him as a leader or figure in the movement.

I 'd listened to him on Stephanie Miller as they'd always have friendly conversations. Watched a few episodes of his FS TV show and didn't really like it.

You're ignoring his continued work on RT. It's a big reason a lot of DU members don't trust or like him now. He has every right to make a living but the criticism is valid.

[Akamai]

21. So what of his shows do you have criticisms of? He has tried to get on national tv but has been

unable to do so. MSNBC said they wouldn't give him editorial control. He does not want to be limited regarding how much he can focus on climate change, etc.

[rogue emissary]

31. Orleans' post #15 said it better than I could on why I don't listen/watch his program.

Also, I don't see him as that progressive on issues that are important to me. Doesn't mean he's not a good liberal or progressive voice. Just I don't hear very many guest or his caller opinions that match my own.

Clearly, you enjoy his show and get a lot out of his program. Why do you care if some DU members dislike him?

[Akamai]

32. So no specifics? None at all? What issues are important to you?

[rogue emissary]

40. Gun control to name one.

I haven't heard him and his guest talk about it. Also, I'd guess he's for strict oversight. I don't believe he has expressed support in removing the lawsuit protections that gun dealers, sellers, and makers exploit.

[Akamai]

51. He often, often talks about gun control, saying

Even yesterday that families with guns in the home had more deaths than homes without guns.

This was yesterday.

Guns is a big topic for.him.

[rogue emissary]

53. Like I said I hadn't ever heard him talk about it.

I did a quick google search after I posted and found his blog posts. Which he expresses anti gun stances. It says a lot that I never got that impression from watching multiple full episodes of his program. The rambling of his callers probably leads to the fact.

So are you going to answer my question?

[Akamai]

261. He has very, very often talked about gun control, and for several months has been promoting the

idea of forcing gun owners to have insurance on their guns, much like car owners have insurance on their cars -- because they are both objects that can harm other.

[phylny]

24. Yes. The constant Hartmann-bashing is ridiculous. n/t

[Akamai]

33. You bet it's ridiculous! He supported Bernie and then, once Bernie lost, strongly supported Hillary.

thom is not a pinata but a thoughtful, progressive talk show host.

[SunSeeker]

26. No. He went off the deep end with his JFK assassination conspiracy theory, then joined RT.

He lost a lot of credibility with me after his JFK CT, and then he got involved with RT and I just stopped listening to him.

Years ago, when all he had was a radio show, I used to listen to him. He was at his best when he talked about how we need to raise taxes on the rich, pointing out that it makes businesses reinvest into the company, creating jobs, rather than pulling cash out to be socked away. I even bought one of his books, in hard cover, on the subject. He speaks a lot better than he writes--I put the book down after the first chapter and never bought any more of his books.

I don't think he is a member of the Democratic party. I seem to recall him saying he was an Independent. In a 2013 interview with Politico, he described himself as a "Democratic Socialist." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartmann

[Akamai]

29. He does have several points of view that may not be the same as all of us - who doesn't?

I too am a Democrat and a Democratic Socialist.

Democratic Socialism comprises the view of much of Europe with their views of the social safety net.

turns out that now millennials are very willing to embrace a Socialist label rather than a Capitalist label, because they know how capitalism has failed them.

Bernie is a Democratic Socialist and this seems the most humane political belief.

[SunSeeker]

42. All European economies are market economies, like the US.

The difference is they regulate their businesses more and have better safety net programs:

While speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the center-right Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he was aware "that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism."

"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

Rasmussen acknowledged that "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens," but he also noted that it is "a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-stop-calling-it-socialist/

[Akamai]

262. Bernie would argue that a democratic socialist economy provides a safety net to protect

everyone. Contrast that with the Koch brothers view of extremely, extremely limited government, no public schools, no libraries, no social security, no medicaid, no era rules, lower taxes on the rich, etc.

[SunSeeker]

282. Bernie is wrong to call the Nordic countries democratic socialist.

That is why the Danish Prime Minister felt compelled to make that statement. It was in response to Bernie.

Safety nets are not just in social democratic economies. They exist in every well-managed modern economy.

The Kochs are crazy libertarians who don't believe in government. They do not represent the alternative to democratic socialism. The alternative to democratic socialism is a well regulated market economy with a robust safety net that takes care of everyone--which is what a true safety net program is supposed to do. That is what the Nordic countries have and what progressives in our country are fighting to get. Comparing any system of government to what the Kochs want makes no sense since the Kochs want no system.

The fact is, we are a capitalist country, as is Sweden and Denmark. The difference is they have better social safety net programs than we do. By calling our safety net programs socialism, you are adopting the right wing's nomenclature and scaring off voters. That is counterproductive to getting a good safety net in our country.

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. "Democratic Socialist". There seems to be a concerted effort afoot to drive DU in that direction...

and I don't think it's a coincidence. It's not unifying DU, and it certainly won't unify the Democratic party, but perhaps that's the goal?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029428764

[SunSeeker]

37. Yes, and it is really not helpful to accomplishing progressive goals in the US.

By calling our safety net programs socialism, you are adopting the right wing's nomenclature and scaring off voters. The fact is, we are a capitalist country, as is Sweden and Denmark. The difference is they have better social safety net programs than we do.

[whathehell]

122. Oh shit...You're not a Warren Commissioner, are you?

Virtually NO one who lived through the assassination believed that report.

As recently as 15 years ago, 80 percent of New Yorkers deemed the Warren commission bullshit.

[SunSeeker]

137. Oh shit...You're not always this rude, are you?

Try to restrain yourself, but not eveyone is a fan of conspiracy theories...or Thom Hartmann.

[whathehell]

152. Oh shit..Are you?

Sorry if you iinterpret honesty as rudeness, but no, dear, one needn't be a "conspiracy theorist" to believe that conspiracies, if rare, do exist.

We call those who believe otherwise " coincident e theorists" and laugh at their naivete.

[SunSeeker]

174. I see. You really are that rude. Nothing "honest" about your post, "dear."

[whathehell]

222. Lol, sure..Your personal attacks may make you feel better about

being unable to defend your claims or offer anything of substance beyond a knee jerk reaction to supposed "conspiracy theories", but you should know that they rarely fool anyone.

[SunSeeker]

223. Project much?

[whathehell]

227. Um, no

That appears to be your problem.

[SunSeeker]

231. Um yes, you are projecting.

You come in this thread breathlessly ("Oh shit" ) attacking me for something I did not even mention (the Warren Report) but you do not address the reasons I actually listed for why I do not think Hartmann is a Dem leader. With condescending derision ("dear" ), you attack me personally as being a "Warren Commissioner," "naive" and not offering "anything of substance beyond a knee jerk reaction"--even though that is exactly what you did in this thread.

Not everyone thinks Hartmann is God. Get over it.

[whathehell]

279. "You came to this thread breathlessly"....Huh?

Trust me, dear, neither the the inability to appreciate Hartman or a naive belief in the Warren Commission are sufficient to leave me "breathless". Surprised, maybe -- 'Breathless" hardly.

It's like this, dear..You don't like my posts? Put me on Ignore...Beyond that, I suggest you stop whining and "get over it" yourself.

[SunSeeker]

285. Let it go.

[whathehell]

286. You let it go..

[Marie Marie]

35. I like him and always learn something from him.

I don't doubt his Liberal creds.

[Akamai]

52. Me too. Very decent and considerate guy, with insight on so

many areas of critical importance.

[OnDoutside]

36. No, not while he drives impressionable progressives to Russian State TV.

[pnwmom]

43. He's a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist who, unlike Bernie Sanders, chooses to

validate RT, the Russian propaganda network, by having his show there.

He isn't a Democratic leader.

[Hekate]

44. Nope

[burrowowl]

46. Yes!

[ToxMarz]

56. He's good for people just tuning into Democratic/Progressive ideas

Kind like your aging grandfather. Tells the same stories over and over and everything relates to some story he's been telling for years. A lot of pats on his own back.

[whathehell]

77. You must be kidding...He's so far beyond that..

As to "aging grandfathers" lol, .maybe yours -- .mine were "progressives" before the term was in use.

[Akamai]

269. I sure agree with you on this. Thom has a lengthy history of sophisticated insight into many

important aspects of this world, of politics, of the environment, etc. And he keeps on chugging!

[whathehell]

283. Exactly.

He's been a lawyer, a psycothetapist, a small business owner in addition to a successful talk show host...Beyond that, he's written sixteen books, many translated into several languages.

Oh well.. There's no accounting for taste.

[diva77]

61. What I don't get is: where is the outrage against subhumans like Rush Limberger

Right Wing media has devastated this country immeasurably and yet there is so much bile directed at Thom Hartmann who has put a lot of great info. out there and used to host Bernie's weekly town halls where he was able to get the message out about the 1% having wealth = to the other 99%, etc. Things are out of proportion with these rants against Hartmann.

[mdbl]

84. I take issue with your statement

I am always bringing up Mush Limpballs and the heinous crap spewing from his hate radio show.

[diva77]

123. Thank you!!

[mdbl]

368. :)

[Tarheel_Dem]

321. The lack of outrage can most likely be attributed to the fact that even fewer DU'ers listen to Lush

than listen to Hartmann. I think it's a safe bet that neither of them enjoys a huge listenership at DU after 2016.

[Tavarious Jackson]

62. Wolf in sheeps clothing

I also live in PDX but I'm not white, not elite and not a hipster on N Mississippi.

[whathehell]

117. Care to elaborate?

He's been around a long time and has yet to show his fangs.

[mr_lebowski]

64. I agree with you Akamai ... I like Thom and definitely don't doubt his progressive bona-fides ...

Sometimes he's not 100% historically accurate, that's a complaint in this thread that IS true ... but he's a lot more accurate than your average pundit by a long stretch.

And he does have a bit of a tendency to keep telling the same stories ... but not everyone is an everyday listener, so ... I get it, and tolerate it. Sometime I'd change the channel for a bit when I already know the spiel that's coming, but not often, and I'd usually pop back after a bit.

If I had any real complaint that actually bugs me it's that he let's RW guests ramble on at times, and doesn't blast them for their nonsense nearly as vehemently and convincingly as I would ... but then, I understand he wants to keep his relationships w/certain people intact, due to their marketability. IOW, he's a bit of a slave to capitalism, but aren't we all?

Basically, I like him out there on the airwaves, making the progressive case. If we hadn't lost our progressive station here I'd still listen to him daily as I always have whenever he's been scheduled during my drive.

[whathehell]

65. Yes, and Hell Yes!

Thom is a GREAT progressive voice...The best!

[whathehell]

70. Not a Stein fan, but maybe.you could try denouncing her character

without slurring her gender via the b-word. Just a thought.

[The_REAL_Ecumenist]

85. look you say what you want to say and I will say how I FEEL

As far as I'm concerned, she's is EXACTLY what I called her, STEALING money from those of us who KNEW that something had happened that was beyond the pale. The fact that she used the powerful desire so many had to steal from people who did without to get to the bottom of things says she's lucky that's all I and countless people feel about her. I AM A WOMAN and if there were some way to take away her Double X card....I WOULD! Feel free to block me, if you must. The ONLY ones who deserve an apology from me are the canines... PERIOD!

[whathehell]

109. You haven't been here very long, have you?

Ever bother to read the DU Terms of Service?

If you did you'd have realized that this isn't exactly an "I can say whatever I want and same to you" environment There are rules against bigoted and sexist speech even if you ARE a woman.

Beyond that, it's sad to see women who really don't get the dynamics of oppression and how much they have, like many racial minorities, internalized, the contempt in which they're held...It's true that in a patriarchal society, men have controlled the language to the point where women tend, in knee jerk fashion, to slur themselves and other women. when, like men, they get angry at women for flaws which have NOTHING to do with gender..
As Tina Fey says in 'Mean Girls", it only makes it easier for men to continue demeaning us...Pathetic.

[ariadne0614]

349. Thanks for saying this so I don't have to.

It's pre-dawn and I need more sleep. I also agree with you about Thom. We're lucky to have him. The snarky circular firing squad in this thread is unbecoming and not helpful. Maybe more of us need to read the Rude Pundit. http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2017/08/your-stupid-fight-about-whos-better.html

[whathehell]

352. Thanks, ariadne0614

for your support and your funny & true Rude Pundit link.

[leftofcool]

67. I don't consider him at all.

Don't listen to him and don't care. I just have better things to do.

[whathehell]

74. That's nice, but

it kind of begs the question of why you are posting here then, doesn't it?

[leftofcool]

75. I've been on DU for a long time. Question asked question answered.

Any more questions?

[whathehell]

79. Really?

Last edited Wed Aug 9, 2017, 08:39 AM - Edit history (1)

Then I guess you're out of "better things to do".

[eShirl]

71. Not really, no.

I don't trust him.

[RandiFan1290]

72. Yes, 100% support Thom

The trolls are extremely obvious

[Akamai]

263. Still relitigating the last election and finding someone -- anyone -- to blame, I think.

[NurseJackie]

73. LOL! Nice try. You can't squeeze him in under the "Don't bash Democratic public figures" rule.

From my perspective, I think there are two general reasons for some people to vilify Hartmann:

Really? That's ALL you see? That's ALL you've heard? If I may make a suggestion, it's probably time to broaden your "perspective".

[leftofcool]

76. Was a nice try wasn't it?

[NurseJackie]

80. ... and easily seen for what it really is. Rather amusing actually.

The effort to "reclassify" Hartmann as a "Democratic political figure" is just as obvious as the fact that Hartmann is a Russian mouthpiece and it subsidized by Russia Today (Putin's propaganda agency).

[bluepen]

94. +1. And this isn't the first time.

The method here seems to be:

1) start a thread praising Thom Hartmann, dismiss criticism

2) start another fawning thread about Thom Hartmann, reply to criticism from the same people and demand the same specifics that were dismissed in the previous thread

3) repeat

Example: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9434380

[leftofcool]

101. Like I told a Hartman fan above, I have better things to do.

I don't pay one bit of attention to Russian propagandists.

[R B Garr]

281. +1000, yes, thanks, it is very easily seen.

Russia TV is a propaganda arm of Putin. The "reclassifying" attempts are very transparent.

[Tarheel_Dem]

322. + a million.

[FreepFryer]

345. +1! (n/t)

[Ninsianna]

81. Obvious trolls are obvious.

Is this more of that not so clandestine operation from the returning wave?

[Foamfollower]

96. Yep, very clear where the OP was going with this cheap shot.

If Hartmann qualified then nobody would be able to say a word against William Rivers Pitt or Glenn Greenwald, either.

Same fucking bullshit, different idiots writing that bullshit and not one of them is a "Democratic leader".

[LisaM]

78. Not any more. N/T

[riderinthestorm]

82. Yes nt

[Adrahil]

83. Not a long as he works for Vladimir Putin.

Putin doesnt pay people who dont serve his purposes, wittinigly or unwittingly. Thom is either a willing dupe, or guileless and willing to take the money anyway.

[Squinch]

86. In this day and age, you simply can't work for RT and be trusted by Democrats. Simple

as that.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

87. Is that the guy who was making excuses for Russia with made up bullshit

About Reagan and NATO? Yeah, fuck him. Putin apologist disguised as progressive, NOT a Democratic leader, just another charlatan, duping the gullible.

[handmade34]

88. Thom is a good man

he was my upstairs neighbor years ago in Michigan... he took the photos of my daughter's home birth and he was the manager of the store I worked at...

[Akamai]

264. Cool memories! Very touching...

[Kahuna7]

90. Uh.. no. Never liked him. nt

[Foamfollower]

91. FUCK NO! He's a Putin Poodle and a TRAITOR!

[WoonTars]

168. I think you forgot the sarcasm smilie...

Traitor? That's a very strong word. Care to back it up with actual facts?

[Foamfollower]

169. Yes, TRAITOR!

Russia declared Cyber War on the US. We are AT WAR WITH RUSSIA!

Thus, those who collude with Russia are TRAITORS!

[WoonTars]

179. Please elaborate. How is a dyed in the wool Liberal-Progressive like Thom..

..."colluding" with the Russians? What has he done to undermine the democratic process in the US, or furthered the Russian agenda of disinformation in the US media?

Specific cites please.

[Foamfollower]

181. RT

[WoonTars]

184. That's not an answer.

Please give examples of him being a "traitor", or aiding or colluding with the Russian agenda.

[Foamfollower]

185. That was all the answer that is needed.

One cannot be a progressive and work for Russian State Propaganda.

End of discussion.

[WoonTars]

190. Except no it isn't. How can you possibly be considered a Russian propagandist...

...when he constantly espouses Liberal-Progressive values?

Using your logic if i have Russian dressing on my salad I'm colluding with them and a traitor.

That's just ridiculous.

Now, all of this venom and vitriole wouldn't have anything to do with who he backed in the primaries, would it????

[Foamfollower]

194. You just created a false equivalency between Russian Dressing and the OFFICIAL Russian Media

Seriously, he literally takes a fucking paycheck from Vladimir Fucking Putin for fuck's sake!

[WoonTars]

364. Literally? Putin signs his paychecks?

I'm going to need to see proof of that bullshit...

[Akamai]

265. Bingo! Bingo! Bingo! Bingo! Bingo! You are keerect! (about anger about who he backed in the prima ir

[mcar]

300. Way to repeat a Sean Spicer talking point

[whathehell]

351. Most critics here know nothing about him except "He's on RT"

Others say things like 'He's gets his facts wrong constantly" but

can't name even one.. .

[disillusioned73]

360. It is funny..

to watch the uninformed be so sure of themselves.. I will give them this, propaganda is alive and well.. it's just not coming from Thom Hartmann, a strong progressive/liberal voice..

[whathehell]

374. Yep..

sometimes funny, sometimes annoying..

[WoonTars]

365. I know why they're mad at him...but none will admit it openly...

...so in the meantime they just make up bullshit and fake outrage at one of the most consistent and stalwart Liberal and Progressive voices on the air today...

Shameful.

[whathehell]

371. I guess I'm out of the loop there..

Can you tell me why?

[whathehell]

384. but It looks like

you're also afraid to say it.

[disillusioned73]

359. They can't..

don't bother..

[WoonTars]

366. Right?

So predictable...

[ms liberty]

92. Yes, he is a voice for democratic principles and ideals

And no, he is not being paid tons of money from by Russia or RT and he does not work for them. I listen to him when I'm in the car, and occasionally watch his show on FSTV, and I have for years. I've read some of his books as well. I have heard him (on his radio show on Sirius/XM) discuss his show on RT, and he has explained the arrangement to my satisfaction and since I have never heard him advocate for a pro-Russia stance, I'm not concerned. I like TH, and He's been a voice for our side for a long time.

[NurseJackie]

98. LOL!

Last edited Wed Aug 9, 2017, 03:49 PM - Edit history (1)

And no, he is not being paid tons of money from by Russia or RT and he does not work for them.

[ms liberty]

167. A truly scintillating refutation of my comment

Lacking only your usual juvenile gif addition to make it complete.

[NurseJackie]

176. LOL! It needs no refutation. That statement was so obviously false that it refutes itself...

...

[NurseJackie]

242. Self delete.

Self delete. Replied to wrong post.

[Akamai]

267. ms Liberty -- accusations like these are without foundation -- throwing mud at Thom and running

away.

Ms. L: "Who you gonna believe, your lying ears, lying memories, lying common sense or the mindless screeds and accusations by people who have motivated reasoning to convince others?" (that was sarcasm)

The Thom Hartmann you listen to is the same one I listen to. Knowledgable, caring gentle.

[George II]

241. Muppets rule!

[NurseJackie]

243. Thanks, George! (Statler and Waldorf always make me laugh.)

[Maven]

104. He literally works for RT and is being paid by them.

That makes him a tool of a Russian propaganda outlet.

[ms liberty]

173. Can you provide a link to proof that he works FOR them, they are paying him, and what amount?

Because I've heard him explain the arrangement, more than once, and so without proof of your claims you're just talking trash. He's also on FSTV, and on the radio, and has his own podcast, and had those before RT was running his show. Are those also RT propaganda tools?
On second thought, since I don't actually give a shit whether you like him or not, never mind. Think what you will.

[MrsCoffee]

175. He works for them and refuses to say how much they pay him.

Do you think he goes on air and does his show for them for free?

Talk about naive.

[ms liberty]

177. Did you miss my post?

He has spoken about this and has explained it to my satisfaction. You could find it out yourself, if you were interested. And I gave up my naivete many years ago when I was a twenty something, long before the internets came along.

[MrsCoffee]

182. And what he says goes against what others who have actually left RT have said.

[ms liberty]

192. Oh, so someone else said something about Thom

And you believe it, because someone said it. I'm sure that settles it! Ill bet they said it on the internets, too - Bonjour!

[MrsCoffee]

196. When others left the station after Putin's actions in Ukraine, they described how RT works.

Wahl charged RT with exerting strong if indirect control over the content on the cable news channel, which is widely regarded as pro-Putin. “In order to succeed there you don’t question," Wahl said. "In a way you kind of suppress any concerns that you have and play the game.” Wahl also made her feelings clear. “It actually makes me feel sick that I worked there,” she said. “It’s not a sound news organization, not when your agenda is making America look bad,” Wahl said, adding that RT fools "hipster generation" Americans into believing Kremlin propaganda.

To pretend that there is no influence is naive.

Here is an article about why she quit: http://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-rt-anchor-liz-wahl-explains-why-she-quit

[ms liberty]

205. And there is nothing in that article about Thom Hartmann

Nor is there any mention of his program, or details about how his program on RT is produced and airs. So you're extrapolating that what someone who did work for RT is saying applies to Thom and to the Thom Hartmann show that appears on RT. Do you know what Thom says about his RT show? Perhaps you should look into that before you try to tell others they're wrong or naive or that they're unable to think critically,.

[MrsCoffee]

217. She was mentioned in another article I read about him not leaving RT after Putin's

actions in Ukraine.

I didn't just mention her for the hell of it. They worked there at the same time, but somehow he is different I guess. He's never been influenced whatsoever by someone who writes his checks.

[Akamai]

268. Thom has repeatedly said that there have been no attempts to manage his content on RT.

He is very sensitive to not having a free hand to do what he thinks best and that's why he could not work out an agreement with MSNBC -- because they wouldn't give him a free hand.

[OnDoutside]

292. And how are RT on this Rusher thing ?

[NurseJackie]

188. You are correct. They're now down to hypercritical hair-splitting as a last-ditch "defense" ...

... next thing you know, someone will be demanding to see a cancelled check that was ACTUALLY SIGNED BY PUTIN himself. It's likely to be argued that "without such a smoking gun, then clearly he's not working FOR Putin."

[mcar]

313. Up thread, Hartman's own wiki entry is posted

To prove that he gets no $$ from Russia.

[NurseJackie]

318. Well... That's good enough for me!

[Maven]

210. He's on their air, hence they are paying a license fee to cover the production budget of the show

Out of which he undoubtedly receives a fee as on-air talent and producer.

And since they are the network licensing the show, they have creative/editorial control over what goes on their air. That's how television works.

Source: I work in the industry.

[George II]

244. If he's filling their air time, he's working FOR them, and promoting their existence.

[R B Garr]

315. He should release his taxes. Anyone, especially our elected officials

who appear on Russia TV, should release their taxes.

[SalviaBlue]

128. Well said. I feel the same.

[Ninsianna]

233. He's A voice, one that is found on RT which is a propaganda network.

It's dishonest to deny simple facts. Just because he's on your car's radio or your TV (which probably does carry RT as well) it doesn't mean he's not associated with RT.

He hasn't explained his situation or the things he's said to everyone's satisfaction, and it's beyond strange that such a fan/boy/girl thread is here attacking those who express that they disagree. There was a question asked and it's being answered and between all the "oh he's so dreamy" posts you're seeing that many people justifiably do not consider him a leader or trustworthy.

I don't like TH, I don't like what he's saying some of the time, or how he says it. His association with RT really does disqualify him as a trusted leader. It's a propaganda network with a specific bias, and it makes no bones about what it is, the people they broadcast know what it is and they choose to associate with it.

Disagreement doesn't have to be hostile or unpleasant, most people see Thom for what he is, not a terrible person, correct on some points and whose association with a propaganda outfit has rendered him not so credible on many issues.

[mcar]

306. Please post links to verify your assertion

that Hartmann is not paid by RT.

[Vinca]

93. He's okay, but I've always found him a little preachy.

[get the red out]

95. Does he still think

that Trump has no ties to Putin and that Russian involvement in the election is BS? I used to love his show, used to, until he went all Putin apologist.

[JustAnotherGen]

99. No - I consider him a talking head

He - so far as I know as ever held an elected office.
I do not know that he is involved at the precint and/or in-state or community Democratic Party.
He's not in a position push legislation through.

I consider him a member of the media.

[H2O Man]

100. Recommended.

I like and respect him.

[samnsara]

102. i listen to his podcast..have no problem with him..he's a friendly voice..

..something we (I) need right now.

[disillusioned73]

106. Yes..

Thomm Hartman is fantastic & anyone who buys the BS that started last year during the primary are just smear merchants at this point & non-listeners (who just follow the crowd).. we need all the strong liberal/ progressive voices that we can get.. & he is one of them, not suprising that they are going after one of the most vocal & well known..

[Akamai]

271. disillusioned -- not surprising at all that they want to blame someone for Hillary's loss, even

though Thom sure as heck supported her before the general election, and has been said earlier, he stopped callers before the general who were attempts to turn listeners against her, etc.

[disillusioned73]

358. He did everything he could.. as I did,

by giving her my unenthusiastic vote.. I've learned a valuable lesson from 2016 though..

Hell, he even got flack from his left flank (to this day by some)..

[FSogol]

108. Nope. n/t

[NRaleighLiberal]

110. Yes. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

111. Russia Today paid stooge

Total trash.

[whathehell]

375. They're paying a "stooge" to spread a progressive viewpoint?

That's a big load of Dumb there.

[alcibiades_mystery]

376. When pulling a con, you find the biggest suckers in the room

[whathehell]

377. Non responsive

but I didn't expect much.

[WinkyDink]

112. You do know that "leader/figure/supporter" is not a list of synonyms, right? I'M a "supporter."

[Akamai]

140. and a Democratic supporter is what the title indicates. He is always telling people to get inside

the demo party if they want to change it, pointing out that the PCP is the most important person in politics.

[WinkyDink]

113. Oh, and BTW: Who is Thom Hartmann, that I should even care?

[boston bean]

114. No and why would anyone.

[SweetieD]

118. No. Nt

[Snake Plissken]

119. I've tried listening to Thom Hartmann, but I usually can only handle about 10 minutes of him until

I remember why I don't listen to him, he's very similar to the Right Wing blowhards on the radio, even though he's pushing a polar opposite agenda, he still does nothing but whine and caters to a low IQ audience. That is why liberal talk radio just doesn't work, most intelligent people are not going to tune in day in and day out to listen to someone whine three hours a day the way Right Winger do.

[stonecutter357]

120. hell no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network) RT has been called a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy by former Russian officials and by news reporters, including former RT reporters. It has also been accused of spreading disinformation.

[mopinko]

121. i find him very gullible, w a bad case of confirmation bias.

he consumes a lot of information, and i dont think he is very discerning about it. his adhd shows.

[Maven]

124. No. Russian propaganda mouthpiece. nt

[betsuni]

125. He was very patient with idiot callers to his show who hate Democrats and blame them for everything.

The fake progressives who get everything wrong. He's wildly inconsistent. Sometimes terrific, sometimes he repeats anti-Democratic propaganda, sometimes a guest wanders into nutty conspiracy theory and he gets caught up in the moment and follows them down the nutty path. Thom Hartmann is a gamble, like dining out.

[MineralMan]

126. I don't consider Hartmann at all.

Since he is no longer on DU, I never hear from him. I am a bit puzzled though about the regular threads praising him you post here. I see them, and sometimes read them, but don't understand them at all.

Some people like him. Some people don't. Some people like what he says and some people don't. He's a minor player in all of this and is no longer on DU. Perhaps we could simply let him be and let people who like him listen to him. Personally, I don't do either.

[Akamai]

142. The reason I post is that Thom does, I think, enormous good for the people of this country.

He is great progressive, great Democrat, and the issues he brings up are regularly incredibly important.

I tell others that if everyone would listen to Thom and his arguments, people would vote Democrat.

ON the other hand, some dividers, maybe still sore at his support of Bernie, are unfairly tarring him with a broad-brush, with personal attacks.

Just my own two cents.

[MineralMan]

146. I don't know, but that sounds awfully naive to me.

I've seen no evidence that he's a "great progressive" or any such thing. I have to say that I find unending praise of that person questionable and puzzling, to be quite frank.

Do you know him personally? I know him only from his former presence here and his current activities. He's one of many who wax eloquent about things political, but I don't ascribe any remarkable qualities to him.

His relationship with RT is worrisome to me, and to many others. I often question the truth of what he is saying, as well.

I guess I don't understand the need for threads praising him on such a frequent basis here on DU.

[Akamai]

270. I'll post links leading to some of his latest written pieces -- tell me which ones you disagree with

[KTM]

130. I love his show

I dont agree all the time, but I like his style and temperment, and think he does a great job managing callers and keeping the show moving in a smart fashion. I agree with posters above that he managed the primaries and general well - I often heard him flat out shut down and dismiss callers who went negative on Hillary, even though he would have preferred Bernie.

As for the whole "He is on RT!!!" pants-on-fire nonsense... all that does is tell me what I need to know about the simple minds of some posters. Its like dismissing Margaret Atwood as a mysogynist because she published articles in Playboy, or ignoring Thompson and Taibbi because they wrote for some music magazine.

[happy feet]

133. I agree!!!!

Knowledge is power. Thomm is thoughtful and reasoned. On the occasions I've found myself disagreeing, it's because I don't agree with his line of reasoning and conclusion he's drawn from the facts. I appreciate his style that allows me to draw the same or different conclusions.

I find him to be honest, up front, and actually listens to his callers before responding.

[GusBob]

139. Plus he has some of the best callers on talk radio. Are we to believe they are RT bots?

I don't think so......even though I don't agree with every little thing he or they say.

That's kinda the point after all, aint it? To listen and think things over.

[dembotoz]

136. I listen to his show when I can... Obviously yes

[BainsBane]

138. Why would a "progressive" focus so relentless on a wealthy media personality

over the lives of the poor and vulnerable? How is it that this version of "porgressivism" involves enforcing absolute fealty to the Kremlin's propaganda arm, RT through this insistence that anyone who fails to defer to the wealthiest and most privileged are not "progressive."?

Why would a "progressive" seek to convince Americans that Putin only intervened in, upended, our democracy and put a fascist in the White House because the US failed to keep promises made by Ronald Reagan? Reagan, who mysteriously managed to rise from a state of dementia to appear in 1990 as an apparition and according to the OP, promise Gorbachev that NATO would not expand, a claim directly refuted by Gorbachev himself?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9428778
Why would that "progressive" fail to acknowledge his mistake and instead follow up his efforts to spread the Putin/ Henry Kissinger view of US-Russian relations by demanding unquestioned fealty to a wealthy entertainer whose comfort is paid for by the propaganda arm of the Kremlin, RT? Why would that progressive not deal with the substance of the 1990 negotiations rather than seeking to cover up for blatant untruths by insisting any questioning of that entertainers account was a betrayal to Bernie and progressivism?

Why would a progressive ignore the impact of Kremlin interference on the lives of the poor and vulnerable in the US and abroad in order to insist that the prerequisite for "progressivism" is absolute fealty and subservience to men of wealth, both Hartman and his employer Putin, the wealthiest man in the world?

Why would someone who contrives an argument designed to convince Bernie supporters that any critical or independent thinking in the face of Kremlin propaganda is because of differences over a long ago settled primary use a Clinton avatar? There are two absolutes in 2017 America politics: 1) those who continue to identify themselves politically in relation to Bernie Sanders would never use a Clinton avatar. 2) Anyone who supported Clinton in the primary and/ or GE does not justify Kremlin interference in democracies on behalf of white nationalism. There are only two reasons why people make such justifications. Either they oppose liberal democracies and seek to promote Putin's global agenda, or they maintain deep resentments over a primary resolved 18 months ago. And the latter would make it impossible for them to use a Clinton avatar.

To understand the collapse of American democracy, people need look no further than this and yesterday's thread. Good, otherwise intelligent people who should know better have supported the thread because, it appears to me, they are taken in by claims of concern about Bernie. The tendency to support anything that people see as supportive of their own political faction or opposed to a politician they resent (ie. Clinton) is what led to Kremlin planted stories dominating and determining the 2016 election. That is precisely how Trump was able to become president. Going along with this is not necessary to promote Bernie. Moreover, Bernie nor his supporters are helped by empowering a global propaganda effort that undermines democracy in pursuit of White Nationalism. Putin's army of bots, trolls, and moles are actively engaged in ensuring Trump retain his grip on power. http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/
They are not your friends or allies. They are using you to promote Putin's effort to spread white nationalist across the West and thereby strengthen his own power.

Did 2016 teach people nothing? Do you really want to see those efforts continue into 2018 and 2020? Progressives, the working class, the poor, and the vulnerable can only come out worse from this. Democracy demands more of its citizens. We must remain critical and vigilant. That anyone is taken in by these efforts reveals we are failing that responsibility.

[The Polack MSgt]

224. Well done. I just wanted to respond to this outstanding reply...

Before it is taken down by the BJWs.

On a trivial aside, I believe he uses the Clinton avatar "fer the LULZ"

[Akamai]

272. Thom is not particularly wealthy -- have any idea of his overall wealth?

[BainsBane]

319. $2 million, according to what I just found via Google.

That sure as hell is wealthy.

[Trial_By_Fire]

320. Prove it...

Let's see where you called up his tax filings...

[Akamai]

323. Also, 2 million is a fair amount of money, but not a huge amount as

compared to Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Levin, tv hosts, etc.

Thom has said he could make a lot more money as a conservative speaker and said that many major conservative talk-show hosts are directly given payments by right-wing money people.

[Trial_By_Fire]

329. Where's the proof of Hartmann's 'fortune'....

I was asking of the previous poster, but if you know, please provide proof...

[Akamai]

331. I think I saw an estimate that his total wealth was estimated as

between one and two million dollars, certainly not huge, given his prominent position.

[Trial_By_Fire]

334. That is not my point...

How does anyone know unless they look at his tax filings?

But, let us remember, Hartmann is an entrepreneur. He and his wife have started
and sold more businesses than most people have ordinary jobs. He writes books.
He works his ass of for America and Americans- the patriotic FDR for the people
kind of guy.

And people here give him shit? It is disgusting. One has to question their motives...

[Akamai]

336. Yes --but I think you asked about his wealth, and this is the

estimate I read.

But I sure as hell agree with you that he works tirelessly for all of us, especially for the powerless and the needy. He gives us hope and direction and gives voice to progressive leaders from across the country and across the world.

I think many of his critics here are angry about his early support of Bernie and most of the others don't listen to his show.

[CrispyQ]

141. His book, "We the People: A Call to Take Back America"

should be required reading for every American over ten. It's a civics primer with some key early history thrown in. It's written in a comic book fashion - a very quick read - explains a lot of how we got where we are.

https://www.amazon.com/We-People-Call-Take-America/dp/1882109384

[TheBlackAdder]

143. RT does it for me. He's compromised.

Joining on with the Russians, to make money, is one of the same reasons the RWers do it.

[FreepFryer]

145. Are you being paid by Hartmann or RT for promoting him in numerous such threads? (n/t)

[yardwork]

170. I would like to know the answer to that as well.

However, there are also plenty of people who are fooled by propaganda and become unwitting accomplices.

[NightWatcher]

178. It has become a daily occurrence

[Akamai]

273. Nope - I just think that in this war of ideas, we shouldn't give up our best weapons.

Thom is clearly one of our best weapons.

[FreepFryer]

288. By "our" I assume you mean Putin, given your post yesterday and ongoing refusal to admit his lie. nt

[MrsCoffee]

151. Not today. His paycheck is more important to him than anything.

He could easily get his reputation back by severing all ties with the Russians, but that would mean letting go of the hand that feeds him.

[RKP5637]

153. Yes. n/t

[saidsimplesimon]

154. Akamai

My only disappointment with Thom Hartmann is his association with RT. He is a UofM grad and former Ann Arbor resident (DC now?). Mr. Hartmann's political views are far left of mine. That does not diminish my respect.

[L. Coyote]

157. Russia's Thom Hartmann? Look who signs his paycheck first.

[msdogi]

159. I support Thom

Have always admired his honesty, integrity and knowledge. So sorry that he has become a target in this idiotic arguing within our party about who passes which "purity test".

[MrsCoffee]

161. Yeah, so sorry for second guessing anyone with ties to Russia right now.

Especially when they start peddling bullshit propaganda.

Poor guy is just a target.

[geek tragedy]

160. no one who draws a paycheck from Vladimir Putin is any kind of leader in the party

or in the larger liberal/progressive community.

[Scruffy1]

163. In my opinion he has always been a twp bit hustler.

His whole schtick is mostly boring self promoption and book selling, Always gets a lightweight to beat up on air and then promotes his books. When he shows up in these parts he's all about himself and selling some books,

[Foamfollower]

171. BUY GOLD!!!

When he started peddling the same BUY GOLD nonsense that the wingnuts on radio peddle, I knew he was a fraud.

Then he sold out to Russia.

[NurseJackie]

215. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he started selling Hartmann branded nutritional supplements...

... and "prepper" survivalist gear.

[oppressedproletarian]

164. I enjoy listening to Thom

The first hour of his radio show is carried via Free Speech TV on my local public access TV station. Can also watch it online. I have seen his "Big Picture" TV show on RT a few times, but not for awhile.

For those who have a problem with him being on RT, why don't you ask him why he chooses that venue?

[eleny]

165. He reads and quotes DU from time to time. That ought to make him suspicious!

[emulatorloo]

180. He's a talkshow host and commentator. He's not a "Democratic Leader". Don't be silly.

[Else You Are Mad]

187. What I don't get is...

Why people bash Thom for being on RT but don't bash MSNBC hosts that don't talk about net neutrality because they are owned by Comcast or any major outlet because they don't discuss the corruption in the Pharma industry because they're the largest sponsors of those networks. How often did the MSM talk about standing rock or any negative thing about petro companies? If they did, they were quickly shut up or fired.

I listen to Thoma quite often and I never once heard him talk about any Russia propaganda.

[emulatorloo]

201. you must not watch MSNBC as I've heard them discuss big Pharma and net neutrality. RT equals TrumpTV

Better comparison to RT is TrumpTV. Both state television.

I like Thom but if I were him I'd hire a bunch of TV production students and distribute on YouTube. I wouldn't want to be associated at all with that brand. But he should do whatever he chooses, totally not up to me.

[Cary]

202. How do you not understand being paid by Putin?

You can disagree that it disqualifies someone, I suppose. But you can't rightfully claim that you don't understand how seriously wrong that is.

[Else You Are Mad]

204. He isn't paid by Putin.

They just broadcast his evening show. Thom has complete editorial control over his show.

Also, so few people watch RT that is really isn't as powerful of a propaganda network as people think it is. I am not saying that it isn't a propaganda arm of Russia, but it is not the all powerful Russian propaganda monolith that many people here believe it is.

[Cary]

212. That wasn't my question

I have a problem with anyone who is involved with Putin. As I said you can debate how much of a problem it might be, but it's still not a good thing.

I don't know the details and I will look into it further. I like Thom, and I'm listening to him right now. But Putin ....

[Foamfollower]

218. BULLSHIT, THEY GIVE HIM MONEY! HE IS BEHOLDEN TO PUTIN!!!

There is no spinning that simple FACT away.

[Cary]

235. I'm looking into this.

I honestly was unaware. Whether they pay him or not what I'm have seen so far is more than disconcerting.

We have so few voices.

[mcar]

316. Please post links to verify your assertion

Thanks.

[BainsBane]

221. Read this:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9428778

This OP is a follow up to that one, in what appears to be an effort to distract from factual errors by indicting anyone who questions anything Hartman says.

The principle error was the false claim Reagan promised not to expand NATO. You can read the discussion regarding that in the comments.

i find it rather appalling that you would equate the absence of a discussion of one issue on MSNBC with RT's efforts to overturn American democracy and promote white nationalism in the US and abroad. If you really think they are the same, I find it difficult to understand why you would possibly want any involvement with the Democratic Party.

[DonCoquixote]

189. I like thom, but

RT is a serious stain. It is kind of like funding a clinic for the poor with Mafia Money. You knwo the work is good, but you know the Mafia does not give anything for free.

[JCanete]

230. I guess, but what about people working for corporate media? Why isn't that a serious stain in the

same way? We know exactly what it has been selling us for the last 30 years, and that's pretty much poison.

[DonCoquixote]

308. Putin has a deliberate goal and method

and that is to ensure we lose, especially on matters like climate change where Russians are brgaging already about dorwning us.

[JCanete]

340. corporate media has been fairly deliberate, and what has had a worse impact on the misconceptions of

climate change than it, again over the last few decades? The point is the only visible places to get news come packaged with that agenda.

[womanofthehills]

258. So you would rather not have a liberal on the air, than have him on RT.

[DonCoquixote]

309. no, like I said

I can admire the work, but at some point, the bill will be due.

[IndieRick]

191. Hartman is a moderate

Nothing wrong with being such, I respect him for his reportage but found him a bit on the boring side, frankly.

The article does touch upon a serious problem with progressive politics however; this endless penchant for demonizing, trivializing and otherwise dismissing the stated opinions of those who have wide audience, whether because of some silly search for political purity or more devious reasons constantly keeps the left splintered and unable to present a coherent front.

[MurrayDelph]

199. I stopped listening years ago

When he was going on yet another rant about wanting to impose tariffs.

The final straw was when he suggested his willingness to trade birthright citizenship to get his tariffs. I'm sorry, I don't care how liberal you may be in other areas, you lose points with me when you want to trade away other people's rights (especially ones that won't affect you) to get what you want.

Now, when Stephanie Miller is over, I quickly change the channel (usually to Gravity Falls on Disney XD. It's creator, Alec Hirsch, is a more-reliable liberal), so that the Hartmann Show doesn't get tracked.

[Arazi]

200. Yup. 100% eom

[sheshe2]

203. No to Hartmann. No to RT/Putin.

[tammywammy]

207. Leader/figure - no. Supporter - sometimes. n/t

[Binkie The Clown]

208. Since this is a question of "purity", I expect much rancor to bubble to the surface.

And thus the "Thom Hartmann purity issue" will become yet another wedge issue to divide Dems so that the whole party can crumble into irrelevancy over internal squabbles.

So I expect four factions to emerge: "The Thom good" faction, the "Thom bad" faction, the "why are we even talking about this" faction, and the "who is Thom" faction. Which faction will be the first one to be kicked off the island? Grab your popcorn and stay tuned.

[emulatorloo]

211. You're right. This thread is basically flamebait. Stir the pot!

[Binkie The Clown]

213. How about Bill Maher? Let's do a purity test on him!

Oh boy! I can hardly wait to watch the fireworks on that thread!

[emulatorloo]

214. He is a Democratic Leader!!!!!! So is Katy Perry for that matter!

[DFW]

219. I live in Germany, so I don't hear/see his show

I used to listen to him on Air America when I was on vacation on the USA ten years or so ago. It shouldn't be overlooked what kind of personalities were on there--not only Hartmann, but also Rachel Maddow, Al Franken, Kennedy/Papantonio. Air America may be no longer, but it certainly has one distinguished list of alumni!

From what I can glean, I would say figure--probably, supporter--unquestionably. Leader? I don't know enough to say, and have never been for the idea of a media figure being a leader anyway. Go from being a media figure TO leader--sure, that's not without precedent (Al Franken, e.g.). But being both at the same time? I'm not comfortable with that We can be thankful that Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity aren't leaders of the right, either. It's bad enough that they were/are effective propagandists.

What I have heard of Hartmann's shows indicate to me that he is a dedicated progressive, open to other points of view while firm in his own convictions, and not in the least ashamed to state them. I don't begrudge his friendship with Bernie Sanders in the slightest, even though I don't think that Sanders is the great leader some think he is. He has been friends with Sanders for a long time. I have the honor of counting Howard Dean, for example, as one of my friends. I'm sure some would find fault with Howard at times, too.

Besides, Thom Hartmann has played my music on his show and gave my book a two-and-a-half minute wonderful review on his show--how could I have anything negative to say about him after that?

[tech3149]

225. This entire thread depresses me to no end

I've been listening to Hartmann for well over a decade. He has been a channel for more broadly informed understanding of our history and our relations with the rest of the world.
I don't consider him to be accurate or informed on every issue but he does expose us to viewpoints that are not acceptable in all of Western media.
I'm just a couple of years younger than he and grew up in the post WWII pro-USA anti-communist fervor. If there is anyone that should reject his moderating view on Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran etc, it should be me. I grew up in the heyday of US exceptionalism and veneration of our military victories.
Just like most of our citizens, I didn't know jack shit about the reality of our history until I had that Sword of Damocles known as French Indochina hanging over my head.
Even as kid I knew that some tiny little country was no threat to a massive military power. As Ali stated ,why do I want to go halfway around the world to kill someone who never did me no harm?
I'm sure some of the responses to this post will be hyperbolic interpretations of what I had to say. Some may point to factual deficiencies some may point to logical shortcomings. I'm just a TOD (Tired Old Drunk) voicing my opinion while it's still allowed.
If you want to think about one majorly important issue, think about this.
Every time we present some other nation as an adversary or enemy, we make them so whether or not that is a rational reality. Beyond that, those nations that we consider adversaries, should we not maintain communications and diplomatic relationships to avoid unneeded conflict?

[snowy owl]

240. You are wise - a quality missing in political discouse these days.

Visual media has crowned personalities over intellectual discourse and we suffer for it. I've about given up. But I continue watching and listening to the historians, thinkers and knowledgable folk whether it be RT, fox, Cnn, online radio, or print. I go where I find wisdom. And there have been some wise Republicans as well - Eisenhower - and I loved the old Buckley - Vidal debates.

[BainsBane]

348. Russia made themselves an adversary when they attacked our country

our democracy and installed a White Supremacist in the White House. That's what depresses me, not that people don't have warm fuzzy feelings about having their democratic rights usurped, of being removed from voter rolls by Kremlin hackers. I am not depressed because someone doesn't share my particular views of a TV entertainer. I'm depressed that part of the public eagerly justifies and accommodates the stripping away of the rights of American citizens.

No one has advocating ceasing communication with Russia. Obama maintained relations with Russia even as he expelled diplomats. Your invocation of a blatantly false claim only raises questions as why you feel compelled to go to such lengths. What people are upset about is efforts by some to justify the Russian assault--not the majority, not even most Republicans, but rather limited to approximately 20-25% of the electorate, a subsection of the most loyal Trump voters, and some who supported Trump indirectly through ratfucking votes. That their views toward the American public are identical to those of the White Supremacist, die-hard Trump supporters does not go unnoticed.

I am upset at the lack of regard for the lives of those suffering under this fascist regime by some who claim to be progressive. I am upset that they continue to make excuses for the Kremlin's intervention--both in 2016 and ongoing--that put Trump in power and is continuing to work to keep him there--which can only worsen the suffering of the subaltern. I am upset that some who claim to be progressive worry more about millionaire media personalities and not offending murderous tyrants than the lives of families ripped apart by immigration raids, victims of hate crimes unleashed by Trump's election, the undemanding of environmental and worker protections, and the assault on the right of people of color to seek higher education.

So you keep right on being depressed that some Americans don't put a millionaire media personality ahead of democracy, that they dare to criticize a murderous tyrant who plunged our country into fascism, who don't defer the power of the Putin and his billionaire fascist puppet. You wring your hands in angst that Americans still believe they have a right to elect their own leaders rather than have them imposed by a multi-hundred billion dollar Kremlin operation.

That Russia was once communist does not justify defenses of what is NOW a far-right wing authoritarian regime working to spread White Nationalism throughout the West. It means collaboration with or defenses of that regime are as far right wing as the fascists it installs in power. No leftist makes excuses for fascism in the WH or its despotic progenitor that sits in the Kremlin.

I fully intend to continue to think critically, to refuse to submit to the power of a handful of wealthy men--including THE richest man on earth. I fully intend to remain committed to the rights and lives of myself and my fellow citizens rather than acquiescing to white supremacist rule. And if my refusal to submit to fascism depresses you, to refrain from criticizing it and the global power who installed it in our government, I hope more and more Americans similarly offend your sensibilities. I hope more and more Americans violate your view of "progressivism" that hinges on submission to a small number of wealthy, powerful men. I fully hope Americans of conscience put the citizenry first rather than last. I hope they think of more than placating the creators and benefactors of contemporary American fascism. I hope the sensibilities of those who demand submission to it are offended often and grievously because that would mean citizens are standing up against power and entitlement, that they operate from solitary with their fellow citizens rather than contempt for them.

[Eko]

226. Nope.

Not at all, not one iota, not one bit.

[Egnever]

229. About as much as I think Ed Shultz is one

[snowy owl]

238. So few liberals, fewer progressives on air, I value every one!

And it isn't just Hartmann on RT but others as well. Why pay attention to labels? Where do liberals/progressives go these days for media? Surely not main stream media.

[snowy owl]

239. Curious? Who do you regard as liberal/progressive leaders in media?

[guillaumeb]

251. The other side of this coin. eom

[jodymarie aimee]

254. Love worship and idolize

a million times yes....he is beholden to no one on Free Speech TV...he is miles ahead of corporate networks..I watch every day and learn something nearly every day. Thom, Bernie, Elizabeth, Sherrod, Michael Moore, Maher, Fugelsang, Miller, Feingold, Pakman, Greg Palast, Charlie Pierce...my beautiful Lawrence.....I would curl up and die without these heroes.

[Akamai]

275. Wow! Thom's face would probably be blushing if he read your words -- but I think your deep

is well founded!I like all of those other figures you cited as well, and would include Joy Reid and Ari Melbur too.

[Trial_By_Fire]

287. Progressive Liberal FDR Democrats and Independents know Hartmann is a Democrat's Democrat.

The only reason people here HATE him is from your second sentence: "He brought us Bernie Sanders"...

[FreepFryer]

289. Actually him repeating Putinist lies, on RT's payroll like the Reagan bs in yesterday's post is why.

[Trial_By_Fire]

290. What 'Putin lies' is he repeating...

This should be interesting. And provide proof of what he said.

[FreepFryer]

293. See post 186. I and others provided the Brookings institution debunk of the lie yesterday. Ciao!

Post 7 on yesterday's post, no need to ask me to walk you through that thread (again, as you posted there as well).

[Trial_By_Fire]

303. Just to be complete here - provide proof of exactly what Hartmann said.

Don't just link to a post with a 'Brookings' article. Of which Brooking is a conservative site by the way...

[FreepFryer]

305. Already did. Post 186, and post 7 of the linked post. I said good day, sir.

[Trial_By_Fire]

310. Yup, no proof, no actual statements from Hartmann...post worthless...

[Akamai]

324. Aren't the Thom haters totally without facts? They seem to

be blowing a lot of smoke, but no hard data do they have.

They should be ashamed!

[Trial_By_Fire]

330. Ya, that's my point....

It is all about Sanders. Hartmann is a super cool hard core intelligent patriotic American and luckily we have him as a Democrat.

[Akamai]

332. Yup! Yup! And super Yup! And I agree we are lucky he is a Democrat.

[Tarheel_Dem]

328. Considering his buddies were there, I wonder if Thom's invitation got lost in the mail?

[Akamai]

333. Wow! Such a juvenile personal attack. Hope you remember how

Persuasive this isn't.

[Tarheel_Dem]

337. If it walks like Russian, talks like a Russian on Russian state tv, it's a damn Russian asset.

[Amaryllis]

338. Absolutely. I knew him when he lived in Portland and have only good things to say about him. He's

been all over the issue of election integrity since at least 2000 and has done a tremendous amount to make people aware of how fragile our election infrastructure is, among many other things.

[Akamai]

339. Yup -- he is incredibly knowledgeable about many things and election

integrity is an area of special focus, with his interviews with voting experts about the "red shift" since computer voting machines came on the scene in 2002. He has had Bev Harris many times on his shows, has noted many times that the DNC is reluctant to discuss voter machine tampering because DNC leaders are concerned that talking about voter machine tampering will even further reduce voting rates (as people will have less confidence their votes will be counted).

And certainly Thom has focussed on voter suppression, on the "placebo ballots" (as he he calls them, referring to rarely counted "provisional ballots&quot .

Don't you agree that people who listen to Thom regularly learn a heck of a lot about important things? And that Thom provides more information than almost anyone else?

[Raine]

350. Yes, absolutely! nt

[Skidmore]

353. Why is this such an issue?

I doubt that most people have heard of him. I stopped listening to him years ago when his mode of delivery became screeching, Won't listen to anyone on RT. RT and FOX are blocked on our televisions. If he wants to up his audience, there are better ways to do it. His current shtick of raging uberleftist won't him there. Not a fan.

[tavernier]

357. 350+ posts and most by the OP

for what I have condensed into three words: He hearts Thom.

So I guess that the niggling question in my mind is, don't people have jobs? Dishes to wash? Lawns to mow?

[disillusioned73]

362. I wonder, after reading through this sad thread..

how history will label the completely factless personal smear merchants of our time.. It used to be called "McCarthyism".. but we are going to have to find a newer more relevent name for it cause Senator MCarthey, although being the originator.. no longer holds a monopoly on the tactic...

"McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.[1] The term refers to U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy and has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1947 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression as well as a campaign spreading fear of influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents."

[link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism|

[FreepFryer]

363. RT has been decrying/dismissing US anger over Russian attack on the election as McCarthyism

It's a fallacious and vile attribution that smells of Putinism.

Anti-Russia rhetoric in US is ‘replication of McCarthyism’
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/381465-us-russia-redbaiting-mccarthyism/

[disillusioned73]

367. Well, I read it..

McCarthyism used by what sounds like a conservative/liberatarian radio personality back in March, not surprising.. I do take issue with the idiotic reference of an "alt-left" (which I've seen used right here @ DU recently).. conflating anti-war/ pro single payer advocates with neo-Nazis is embarrassing..

It still doesn't change the fact that it is happening here.. especially when it comes to Hartman & a variety of other left leaning personalites & officials..

[Adrahil]

370. Do you deny that RT is a Russian propaganda tool?

Cause they are ya know. That's not "McCarthyism," it's just a fact.

[disillusioned73]

372. I don't know what RT is - I do not subscribe or

watch it.. I know Thomm Hartman is not a russian propagandist.. if he is, then I agree with a whole lot of russian philosophies - which must have democratic socialist leanings like FDR..

[Adrahil]

373. C'mon, don;t be naive, ffs...

Putin hires people like Hartmann for precisely this reason. He wants to build its image as a legitimate network. That way, when they DO seed it with stories that serve the Russian government's interests, people like you are more likely to take those "stories" seriously.

Do a little research on RT and ask yourself if any progressive should be helping to legitimize it.

Damn, we are our own worst enemy sometimes....

[diva77]

380. Maybe "Net-Carthyism" - it has overwhelmed cyberspace

Needs to be reined in BADLY!!

[FreepFryer]

382. Maybe you can put those who oppose Russian active measures in a gulag! (n/t)

[diva77]

383. not understanding your response

[JHB]

369. Liberal figure, sure, that can cover a lot.

"Democratic leader"? Noooo, I don't think that. I find it odd to refer to him as such.

[MuseRider]

378. I listen occasionally

and would probably listen more if I could. I enjoy his shows, I think of him as a liberal like me. I do not always agree with him but I still find a lot of value when I listen. It is always good to hear all points of the spectrum and he leans heavily left as I do. I also listen to TYT from time to time. I have never really cared much for them but have grown to value their take on things from time to time as well.

This crazy need to all be on the same page limits us terribly. I don't understand why we cannot all support various angles of all liberal values. Listening to other sides is not a bad thing, it is a good thing. Nobody ever said you have to agree but there are points to be made to shape our thoughts as a whole.

I found this site to be so helpful in the early days and am leaning away from it more and more as the need to be exactly alike is overwhelming serious intellectual and important discussion. When one simple mention of something you question about someone gets you labeled a racist or a misogynist or a Russian etc. then the actual helpfulness of this site is gone. **I say this knowing full well there are racists etc among us but saying you do not like someone is not ever the same as being one of those groups.

Herding cats? Why even try? Why can't all cats represent a part of the whole rather than herding them all into a little small minded place where we will continue to lose as we continue to convince ourselves that because we are all alike we are correct. And then there is the "Bernie sucks", "no Hillary sucks". Thom Hartman sucks, Will Pitt sucks, TYT suck. Good lord it is 1st grade all over again. You want to win? Stop this shit. Grow up and get to know the other side of your neighborhood. Our cars may be a tad shabby or maybe not but we are still on your side.

Sorry for getting off, this crap about who is good enough to listen to is driving me crazy. Nothing like small minded people trying to make you believe only one way. Sad to see this here but it has been coming to this for quite some time.

[ecstatic]

381. I'm probably the only member here who has never seen or heard his show.

If he works for RT, he's partially responsible for the quagmire we're currently in and will continue to be in (because so many on our side are too naive to understand when we're being played). It's always the same cycle, someone is propped up as the purist progressive messiah and then shortly after the person is off in Russia or working for RT or Fox News. What many people fail to understand is that these charlatans are only saying certain things to make money or keep their jobs. They couldn't care less about actually advancing progressive causes.