When a “journalist” says that “[X] all but happens” it can be interpreted reliably as “X did not happen”
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
677 points (97.7% liked)
politics
18898 readers
3097 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yea this is such an awkward phrase that only confuses non native speakers, and even native ones that haven't heard it. It reads like a school essay adding useless words trying to hit a count.
it literally quotes the minister saying they have deliberately denied access to "major" news organizations, and then draws the conclusion from Carlsons previous "softball" interviews that this was only approved because it's useful to Russia.
What conclusion do you draw?
That side shot reminds me of Piers Morgan! 😅
Useful fat idiot.
I hope that Tucker asks all of the important questions that Putin has avoided until now and then promptly disappears to 'play golf' in Siberia for the next couple of decades.
The language of the article suggests the interview already happened but is not yet released. Could be a mistake, but I'm guessing they need to edit it, show the Kremlin for approval/final edit, then release.
I've never seen a side shot of tucker Carlson that I can recall. Now I know why.
Why's he so red
Must be hitting that Survival Shield x-2 from Infowars/Alex Jones
Probably vodka.
Where's his chin?
He used to frame it with a bow tie until Jon Stewart roasted it clean off his wattle
Relevant Preacher
deleted by creator
Peskov claimed on Wednesday that Carlson’s position on the conflict with Ukraine is “not pro-Russian by any means, and it’s not pro-Ukrainian; rather, it’s pro-American. But at least it stands in clear contrast to the position of the traditional Anglo-Saxon media.”
Pffft hahaha, what a fucking racist dork. That's some 4chan-level shit.
Also, while I think it's overall a good article, I think calling Tucker a useful idiot is unfair. When I think of a useful idiot, I think of someone who means well, but is on the wrong side without realizing it. Tucker's not a smart man, but he knows what he's doing. If you ever watch his shit (which I only recommend to verify his grift), he's not just disconnected from reality, but actively contrary to it. He's trying to poison the well, while inoculating his viewers to reality and any argument based on it. He's not simply wrong, he's lying. He knows what he's doing is wrong, but he's doing it anyway, for his own benefit.
Weren't they replaying segments of his show on RT?
I'd almost put money on this useful idiot being used to funnel new information/strategy back to the orange lard and it's lawyer
I think Putin is paranoid about being near someone who is not FSB and having an "accident", because that is how he operates. He is doing a Stalin speedrun, and I don't think he'll last much longer.
He is doing a Stalin speedrun, and I don’t think he’ll last much longer.
FWIW Stalin died of natural causes.
falling out of a window is also a natural cause
it's certainly NOT a supernatural cause - if that's the alternative
As long as it's something, there are only a few bad answers. Ghosts, gravity or a guard willing to do some good for their country can all get the job done and I'll celebrate. Whoever runs the show next over there will determine how much there is to be happy about but one thing at a time.
I'm also imagining the end being much like the comedy Death of Stalin...
view more: next ›