Protip: Citing Russia Today does not help your case

[ButterflyBlood]

If you want to believe that California was stolen or even every state that Hillary won was because of vote fraud, I guess you have a right to believe that and a right to promote it here for two more days.

But if you seriously promote this theory by citing Putin's personal propaganda source like so many have, don't be surprised if people just laugh at you in response.

[NWCorona]

1. And neither does citing bluenation, dailynewbin or mediamatters

[insta8er]

2. Neither does any news source that has something negative to say about HRC. Neither linking to videos

by HRC that are controversial or where she has since changed her opinion about xyz issue. Or anything else for that matter that might reflect negatively on HRC. (Sarcasm)

[Octafish]

3. How about that time The New York Times lied America into war?

Trick Question: The New York Times ALWAYS helps lie America into war.



The Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

The Newspaper of War

by Howard Friel
Published on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 by Common Dreams

Many years ago, Ho Chi Minh’s North Vietnam, Communist China, and Soviet Russia were saying one thing about what had happened in the Gulf of Tonkin in early August 1964, while President Johnson and top administration officials were all saying the exact opposite. How should the Times have responded to that situation, assuming a commitment to an independent press and an informed citizenry?

Ten years earlier, in July 1954, the governments of Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and China all signed the Final Declaration of the Geneva Accord on Vietnam, which formally concluded France’s U.S.-supported colonial war in Vietnam. The United States refused to sign, and thereafter proceeded to undermine the most important stipulation of the accord – that elections to unify the northern and southern zones of Vietnam take place in 1956. By what journalistic criteria should the New York Times have covered this refusal by the Eisenhower administration to sign and comply with the Geneva Accord on Vietnam, which opened the door to the twenty-year American military campaign in Vietnam?

When Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Rice claimed in 2001-2003 that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, including an active nuclear weapons program, and when Saddam Hussein denied those claims, what journalistic standard did the Times apply in its response to those conflicting claims?

Journalism schools should teach a course focused on questions like these, given that over the past sixty years the Times and every other mainstream news organization has repeatedly flunked such tests, in each instance aiding the government’s efforts in its illegal interventions and wars.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/05/13-0

This is the "paper of record" that gave us Judith Miller and aluminum tubes, while failing to mention word that George W Bush's illegal domestic spying operation until after Selection 2004. I also want to emphasize this paper has done all it can to keep up the fiction that Lee Harvey Oswald alone shot President John F. Kennedy, who had ordered withdrawal of the U.S. from Vietnam. In addition, this is an important read for those interested in seeing how Corporate McPravda exclusively serves the warmongers and not the People, as intended by the nation's Founders in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

[ButterflyBlood]

6. Dunno what that has to do with the post. Didn't mention the NY Times once.

nt

[CorkySt.Clair]

9. It's a non sequitur that's supposed to impress you.

[Octafish]

10. Do you think I post to impress?

That's not a trick question.

[CorkySt.Clair]

13. Will you be attending the "fart in" in Philly?

[Octafish]

15. Nice comeback.

Such wit.

[truedelphi]

17. Well, you have always impressed me. And with it coming to light that

A full twenty percent of HRC's funding to run for the Presidency came from Saudi Arabia, I guess we might continue to continue to have politicians desiring to impress the Saudis.

[Hekate]

28. Source?

[Octafish]

12. You mentioned ''RT''

I mentioned NYT has played a bigger role in lying to the USA.

Now do you understand?

[GreatGazoo]

4. Pro Tip: all MSM has bias

Thomas Jefferson is thought to have said 'Freedom of the press belongs strictly to those that own one.'

Broadcast TV is a dying business, cable news is limping along and largely ignored by those under 40. There is no good business reason to own newspapers so why do large corporations make "news" part of their mix? Likely it is to be the filter. To be the power broker that shapes public opinion and moves legislation or wars forward so that the corporation can get tax breaks and contracts. Ruppert Murdoch has said as much.

Is Russia Today propaganda ? Sure but no more so than CNN, Fox and the rest. Many may search out "news" sources that they agree with but such a lazy path nearly guarantees that one will be spoon fed a half-fictional narrative. The way to the truth is to look at all news sources with a critical eye, to separate facts and events from the way they are spun and to use a variety of biased sources that have different biases so that you can find some nuggets of truth where they overlap.

[floppyboo]

7. ^KnR^

[840high]

32. .that^

[MineralMan]

5. I'm curious. How does your tip become a "Protip?"

What are your qualifications as a "Pro" on such things? I don't disagree with your conclusion, but if you have some expertise, it would be helpful to know that the expertise is.

[randome]

21. Anyone who's been here longer than 5 years should be considered a 'pro', perhaps?

[TwilightZone]

23. The term isn't generally intended to indicate expertise.

It's more like sarcastic advice about something that should be obvious, common knowledge, etc.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=protip

[Tarc]

8. I regularly alert on RT-sourced threads, and have a pretty good success rate

Vladimir Putin's modern-day Pravda has no place on the DU.

[Autumn]

11. I would rather do Russia Today than any David Brockshit connected site,

IMO there's a bit more decency in RT than any thing that spews out of any brock site.

[realmirage]

14. "Progressives" using a tyrant's personal propaganda machine

As a source to attack Democrats and having no clue how utterly stupid it is.

That is some sad shit right there that someone could be reduced to that

[oberliner]

16. Ditto: The Observer

Which is owned and published by Donald Trump's son-in-law, yet is posted as a source here from time to time.

[truedelphi]

18. WELL the reality according to the Secretary of State (in Calif's) own web papes -

THREE counties flipped from Hillary to Bernie due to activists in Alameda, Marin and San Francisco seeing that the ballots that probably would have never been counted did get counted these past few days!!

This is not RT - this is the Secretary of State for California's own website, devoted to relaying the results of the Primary to us Calif. voters. I invite you to educate yourself and understand certain realities.

[grossproffit]

19. Um, they're always counted. This primary is no different than any other.

[truedelphi]

22. not at all true. Nearly One million ballots remained uncounted during the GM food

Labeling election initiative cycle. Yet the win was assigned to the Mosnanto forces, and no one knows the result of any true count.

Also Calif's Prop Eight's initial "win" was probably "arranged."

So here is the thing - I have covered voting issues going way back to 2004. My article on the John Kerry stolen election was not only published, it went on to be featured on over 350 blogs across the globe,.

Of course, there are certain people in DNC leadership, including a woman who is now running for office, who have never wanted the public to understand her need to keep John Kerry from winning. HRC really did not want to have to wait until 2016 to make her run for the Presidency.

Karma is a bitch. The gritty little truth that major influences on the Stolen Election story, such as Andy Stephenson and Robert Parry of Consortium News realized:

HRC carefully assigned her guy Carville to be "guardian' over John Kerry in the hours after Andy Card announced the George W re-election. And then Carville persuaded Kerry to concede, and not worry his pretty little head about the fact that there were enough ballots left uncounted in Ohio to secure his win! And then the DNC didn't care abut those uncounted ballots either - and offered up no monies to fund the real count in Ohio. It was left to R. Nader and D. Cobb to come up with the $ 100K to cover the count of those ballots.

Fate decided her punishment - she did have to wait until 2016. And even so, she still did not garner the needed delegate votes without a huge struggle against a Senator whose name last year at this time, most people didn't know from Cheese Whiz.

[ButterflyBlood]

25. Any links for your accusations?

Because leaving any ballots uncounted is illegal and anyone could file a suit to force them to be. But I've never heard of any accusations that this occurs in California, especially since state law also requires all ballots to be counted. It has nothing to do with activists, it's simply the law and the way things occur.

Also interesting that you would believe that Prop 8 was rigged in favor when virtually every prominent official in the state advocated against it and it was a proven economic drag on the state. It was indeed a horrible result, but there is no motivation for anyone in California in control to try to rig against it, yes Arnold Schwarzeneggar was Governor at the time, but even he was endorsing a no vote.

[TwilightZone]

20. Counties aren't Congressional districts.

Flipping counties means nothing.

"due to activists"

Incorrect. It was due to the fact that counting has been proceeding since the primary. Activists had nothing to do with it.

[ButterflyBlood]

24. At no point did any official in California state the ballots would not be counted.

The law requires that all mail-ins and absentees be counted, and that is what happened. Even prior to the election there was plenty of talk on all sorts of analysis sites that if the election was close, the winner might not be known for weeks.

There's nothing unusual about this election. More than 2/3 of votes in California are cast by mail, so counting them will be slower than in most states.

[ButterflyBlood]

26. This is what the California SoS site actually says

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/

Election results are updated as often as new data is received from county elections offices after the polls close at 8:00 p.m. on Election Day. Many ballots are counted after Election Day. County elections officials have approximately one month to complete their extensive tallying, auditing, and certification work. They must report final certified results to the Secretary of State by July 8, 2016.

So yes, counting the ballots long after election day is something that is actually planned for in advance. Hell there's even a specific page on the site to accommodate for this:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/status/

It states when every count in the state has had its last check in. The vast majority did so on June 17, none did so earlier than June 10. Yes the ballots are still being counted...as always the plan to begin with. There's even also a separate page to explain the unprocessed ballots status!

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/unprocessed-ballots-status

It typically takes weeks to process and count all of the ballots. Elections officials have approximately one month to complete their extensive tallying, auditing, and certification work (known as the "official canvass&quot .

Most notably, voting by mail has increased significantly in recent years and many vote-by-mail ballots arrive on Election Day. In addition, vote-by-mail ballots postmarked on or before Election Day and received by county elections officials no later than 3 days after Election Day must be processed. In processing vote-by-mail ballots, elections officials must confirm each voter's registration status, verify each voter's signature on the vote-by-mail envelope, and ensure each person did not vote elsewhere in the same election before the ballot can be counted.

Other ballots that are processed after Election Day include provisional ballots (processed similar to vote-by-mail ballots), and ballots that are damaged or cannot be machine-read and must be remade by elections officials.

The Unprocessed Ballots Report (PDF) features unofficial county updates on the number of outstanding ballots that still need to be processed during the official canvass. This information is voluntarily reported by county elections officials and may not be complete.

State law requires county elections officials to report their final results to the Secretary of State by July 8, 2016. The Secretary of State then has until July 15, 2016, to certify the results of the election. For the most up-to-date vote counts before the statewide certified results are published, contact a county elections office directly.

The California Sec of State site also states this under their FAQs: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/frequently-asked-questions/

Will the unofficial election results change after election night? When will all of the election results be final?
Yes, election results will change throughout the canvass period as vote-by-mail ballots, provisional ballots, and other ballots are processed. Depending on the volume of these types of ballots, it may take up to 30 days (28 days for presidential delegates and 30 days for all other contests) for county elections officials to verify voter records and determine if ballots have been cast by eligible voters. The frequency of updated results will vary based on the size of each county and the process each local elections office uses to tally and report votes.

County elections officials must report their final results to the Secretary of State for presidential delegates by July 5, 2016, and all other offices by July 8, 2016. The Secretary of State will compile the results of the election of presidential delegates by July 9, 2016, and will certify the results of all other offices by July 15, 2016.

Everything that you're talking about is outlined on the California Secretary of State site. Sounds like it's simply law and policy, nothing to do with activists.

Also the very counties you cited are not shown as having flipped to Bernie.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/county/alameda
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/county/marin
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/county/san-francisco

[Lord Magus]

27. "Activists" had nothing to do with it and "flipping" counties means nothing.

The votes were counted because that's what happens in elections. And CA doesn't assign delegates by county, they assign them by district.

[randome]

29. Speaking of which, where has Sabrina 1 been lately?

[MineralMan]

30. I believe she has switched sites.

[randome]

31. Huh. Thanks. Too bad, though. I'd grown kind of used to her.

[stevenleser]

35. If she doesn't come back that's one I can take off my ignore list.

At some point using every anti-us conspiracy as your list of "facts" becomes tiresome.

[Agschmid]

33. Yup.

[stevenleser]

34. Most folks who do that are apologists for war and aggression if it's

By a country who sees us as a competitor in general.

You saw a lot of that after Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea.

An unprovoked war of aggression, which is a war crime, became a-ok because Putin and Russia did it.

Many of those same folks accuse Hillary of being pro-war.

Go figure.

[laserhaas]

36. Banter about what "people" do, does not turn wrongs into a right

It just means the possibility of being wrong - is pop culture.

That has been the way of mobkind, since the dawn of mankind.

[pdsimdars]

37. you guys are HILARIOUS. RT isn't Putin Propaganda. Ed Shultz and Thom Hartmann

have shows on RT. Give us a break with all the Bull Sh*t boogeyman crap Chicken Little.