THEY LIE!!! (But how bad is it?)

Homepage Forums Politics THEY LIE!!! (But how bad is it?)

This topic contains 5 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  PopeBeanie 1 week, 6 days ago.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #43182


    Did you know that the U.S. Government lies? And not just to the world, but to the public? That the CIA interfered in the 2016 election to help Clinton, for example, with a campaign promoting the idea that Trump was working closely with the Russians? This ex-analyst with the CIA drops lots of bombshells.

    I apologize because it’s not a short video, but I think once you start listening you may want to keep listening.

    This video first appeared on




    Yeah, it was long, and painful, plus add another half hour for researching where these guys are coming from. I felt the need to look further because of a few red flags, phrases (my paraphrases) like “they kicked us off because we told the truth”, “a conspiracy theory is just a spoiler [for a future truth]”, and then berating (the left, of course) for the “narrative” the liberals are spreading as propaganda. Sure, some of that has a kernel of truth, but I never heard, for example, an explanation for why Putin has invaded and is practically destroying Ukraine, or any debunking of Putin’s claim that they’re the Good Guys denazifying Ukraine.

    I don’t watch MSNBC because they’re obviously so one-sided, and I rarely seen any feasible solutions to our problems, but more of a ranting, venting exercise to demonize the opposing political powers. Sorry, no, it’s just wrong to take the low road because the Bad Guys are.

    This video was more of the same technique, but on the opposite side of the political spectrum. I made myself watch, wondering to the end how seriously this video was meant to be taken.

    For anyone interested in the interviewee Larry Johnson here are the lies he’s known to have pushed:

    Larry also gave a nod to far right mouthpieces/social nets Rumble and BitChute. I’m not seeing any “let’s get together and solve this” kind of hopefulness here.

    I do at times watch Fox for an indication on how a current story is being developed, e.g. when the Uvalde school shooting story was first breaking. But after that, I usually wait for the predictable emotionalism to pass before I pay attention to the news again to learn of the longer term fallout from the ever-so-popular, up-to-the-minute HEADLINE NEWS.

    Please, I’m still hoping for other comments. It’s no longer in my nature to get offended by any comment… took many years for me to get to this point.



    @Pope Beanie

    I admit to not checking out Johnson’s background, so thanks for that. He’s sketchier than I realized.

    Many of those broadcasting on Rumble were finding themselves in Youtube jail or even deplatformed without explanation, and often it’s AI bots reviewing what’s said looking for certain keywords or expressions and without doing any fact checking or interpreting the words in context. As a result, they move to “free speech” platforms like Rumble, which I find understandable. Jimmy Dore is on Rumble, for example, and he’s to the left of Leon Trotsky, so it’s a haven for the political fringe on both ends of the political spectrum, even if the right-wingers outnumber the leftists.

    If you believe in free speech, then you know it’s not just for the speech you like or believe to be true.

    Johnson may have a loose notion of what constitutes truth, and he may be wrong or lying himself sometimes, but it doesn’t follow that everything he says is false.


    • This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: fixed typo: last word "true" to "false"


    Johnson may have a loose notion of what constitutes truth, and he may be wrong or lying himself sometimes, but it doesn’t follow that everything he says is true.

    I think you meant that last word to be “false”. I can change it if you like?

    Good to know about Rumble, could be interesting to compare any extremes to each other. I believe in free speech in the constitutional sense, but I haven’t yet figured out how to easily filter out nonsense, bad or misinformational actors, or clickbaiters. E.g. I filter out MSNBC at the risk of missing an occasional gem. Still waiting for where Elon might take us. I just want quality journalism and investigative journalism with integrity.



    Yes, please fix.

    If you want exceptions to the “Free speech is for the speech you don’t like rule,” then who is appointed as the Truth Czar who filters what we can read and can’t read?

    I try to listen to diverse sources. As a counterpoint to U.S. mainstream news, I listen to a fair amount of DW News’s and France 24’s English language news services on Youtube. In addition, Al Jazeera and RT News as well, though I do take them with a much larger grain of salt. I’m experiencing eye problems so most of my news is on video.  nowadays.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks ago by  Unseen.

    [i fixed typo in post #43224]

    If you want exceptions to the “Free speech is for the speech you don’t like rule,” then who is appointed as the Truth Czar who filters what we can read and can’t read?

    “Czar” is a fitting moniker.

    I created a group to gather recommendations for credible vs non-credible sources of news and investigative reporting, but haven’t figured out how to improve it enough for it to catch on. I’d like to get to the point where I can have a daily routine visiting “the best” source sources, and then learn more from other orgs, but I’m not there, yet. I go to Fox more than MSNBC, because I feel personally embarrassed by hyper-liberally biased news and opinion, while my interest in Fox is more about trying to understand the opposition’s manipulative techniques and narratives.

    Thanks for pointing out RT, I’ll pay more attention to them, and I concur with the other sources you mention. I include NPR and BBC especially for their deeper, magazine-type stories, while I try to detect and correct for liberal biases. I’m also appreciating YouTube as a replacement for cable TV, which I’ve not subscribed to for forty years. I and my family survived on catching a dozen or more TV stations via antenna for a dozen years or more.

    I should mention a Stanford study that’s currently providing access to local network stations (at least in my area), although I don’t know how long it will last or if they only provide northern California/Bay Area channels:

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.