Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What difference does it make if its RT? It's not necessary to pay attention to what any of the reporters say. You only have to listen to the words that are coming out of Hillary's mouth.
Perhaps it would help if you could quote exactly what Clinton says that you don't like? So far as I can see, she is pointing out that Russia and other adversaries are ramping up their information-spreading capabilities, whereas American and Britain have been slacking off. So far as I can see, this is true, and I agree with her that it is unfortunate. Today, as much as ever, America's viewpoints need to be available worldwide.
Obviously the advocates of each perspective will be inclined to refer to the other perspectives as "propaganda" but that is just business as usual. I still say that the perspectives offered by CNN, NTY, NPR, VOA, BBC, etc. are very much worth paying attention to.
I'm sorry, but this thread seems to be a good example of an irrational "conspiracy theory" mindset. What possible motivation could CNN have for purposefully cutting him off at that point in the broadcast? Think about it. He has already given the statistic. If CNN really wanted to cut him off, they should have cut him off or muted him BEFORE he quoted the stats, or, if they couldn't do that, and they really wanted to spin the news, they would have extended the broadcast a few seconds so that the anchor or someone could have time to cast doubt on his claim - and THEN cut the broadcast, thus leaving views with doubt about the stats.
Basically, you don't want to end a broadcast with your opponent getting the last word. If CNN's prime directive is to spin the news in favor of liberals, and if they considered that statistic to be any sort of threat to their liberal views, they would certainly not have ended the broadcast with that statistic. The far more plausible interpretation is that the glitch was just a glitch.
As I see it, the existence of this thread should serve primarily as an embarrassment to right-wing folks insofar as it provides a nice example of the irrationality of a knee-jerk conspiracy-theory mindset.
I agree. If CNN didn't want someone to be seen or heard, they wouldn't (a) invite a Republican Congressman who is pro-Trump to appear on the show in the first place and (b) let what he said be aired, since there is always a time delay.
Before posting this thread and the video, the OP should have looked at it more closely. It's obvious what happened just by looking at the clock in the upper right corner. Often guests start to rant past their allotted time when they're told politely "thank you, we need to go." I didn't see the entire interview, but why just post 30 seconds? It sounds as if he wanted to get in the last word, even if his claim was false, and the show was ending.
This report on 10 U.S. cities with a high number of refugees shows that crime has actually decreased in those areas.
"In nine out of the ten cities that accepted the largest number of refugees, crime went down—sometimes dramatically".
[url=http://www.citylab.com/crime/2017/02/refugee-resettlement-v-crime/516471/]Crime Falls In Cities With Big Refugee Populations - CityLab[/url]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
