if you guys don't think that appealing to "Heartland values" is both racist and propagandistic, I don't know what else to say
Heartland values is what the GOP has built its platform on. If you think that it's racist and propagandistic than you need to call out the entire GOP
Sorry but she needs to shut the **** up, there is no reason to be calling him out for this and what can the people of color tell him? There are people of color in the heartlands as well. I agree with Hance.
Pelosi is either engaging in disinformation (propaganda) with her argument or else Turley is engaging in disinformation (propaganda) criticizing her argument . . . . Either way, there is some SERIOUS disinformation (propaganda) going on here. https://jonathanturley.org/2020/01/31/pelosi-questions-why-the-presidents-lawyers-are-not-disbarred/ Pelosi Questions Why The President’s Lawyers Are Not Disbarred by jonathanturley Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Cal.) made an extraordinary statement yesterday that suggests that lawyers representing President Donald Trump should be disbarred: “I don’t know how they can retain their lawyer status, in the comments that they’re making.” Just as I have been highly critical of President Donald Trump’s attacks on Adam Schiff and others, this is a truly outrageous suggestion. These lawyers are performing a key function in our constitutional system in not just representing an accused person but fulfilling a vital role in an impeachment trial. Because Pelosi disagrees with their legal arguments, she insinuates that they should not be licensed attorneys. It is precisely the type of ad hominem attack that Democrats criticize with the President. Pelosi added that Trump “will not be acquitted” even if he is acquitted — entirely decoupling the Democratic position from either constitutional or ethical norms. She is not the only person engaging in such low-grade, personal attacks. Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe denounced Alan Dershowitz as a “charlatan” for his views. Dershowitz denounced another Harvard professor as a “coward” for his criticism. These are good-faith disagreements over the scope and meaning of the constitutional standard. Moreover, the White House counsel has done an able job in responding to the House, including landing a couple of haymakers on the record. Both sides have had brilliant and not-so-brilliant moments. However, they have all conducted themselves will professionalism and civility for the most part. Nevertheless, this scurrilous slander has become a favorite of even lawyers on the left. Two days before Pelosi’s comment, Mediaite published a column by lawyer and CNN opinion contributor Dean Obeidallah entitled “If Trump’s Legal Team Continues to Lie in the Senate Trial, They Should Be Disbarred.” The column states “Lawyers — and I am one — are officers of the court and we are held to a higher ethical standard than the average person.” He then lists “facts” that are contested by the White House. Cipollone and Sekulow have been around long enough to know that not one client — not even the president — is worth destroying your career over. But if they continue down this path, they should be investigated for possible ethics violations. For example, he says However, the White House maintains that the rest of the testimony of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Laura Cooper showed only that an inquiry on the aide was conveyed to her from someone in Ukraine. The White House claims that she stated that she did not recall the details or reason for the query. That is called a disputed fact, not an unethical act. The effort to attack lawyers for being lawyers in certainly in vogue. I recently wrote a column defending Dershowitz from attacks tied to his past representation of controversial figures. As I noted, Dershowitz was attacked defending unpopular individuals like O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein. That is what criminal defense attorneys do. They represent accused and often highly unpopular individuals. It is the rankest form of attack to suggest that a lawyer defending a client is somehow tainted by the crimes alleged in the case. This attack is even more reckless and unfair. In this age of rage, advocates prefer to attack lawyers making the arguments than address the arguments themselves. It is all an attempt to assure readers that they do not have to seriously consider what they are saying. Members of Congress have previously suggested disbarring Jay Sekulow. I have on occasion called for bar actions against other lawyers, including former Trump counsel Michael Cohen and former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort. They committed both unethical and criminal acts. However, I would have defended both of these men if they faced disbarment based on their legal advocacy. The House Manager have been challenged for statements that are viewed as misleading or false, but it would be equally outrageous to call for the disbarment of Adam Schiff. Rather than respond to the merits of their arguments, Pelosi elects to discredit their professional standing. Pelosi owes these attorneys an apology for this insulting and unwarranted comment.
you're just mad because you forgot to make this a "right-wing only" disinformation (propaganda) thread when you created your disinformation (propaganda) thread. You're pissed because your original disinformation (propaganda) thread title is open to ALL disinformation (propaganda) coming from all sides and because I have exploited the weakness of your overly general disinformation (propaganda) thread title to include examples of disinformation (propaganda) coming from all sides and in hindsight you now regret not limiting your thread to right-wing only disinformation (propaganda). If you change your thread title to reflect your apparent desire for right-wing-only examples of disinformation (propaganda), I will respect that change and either limit my contributions to the newly-retitled-thread-title specific limitation of Right-Wing-Only-Examples-of disinformation (propaganda), or else cease my contributions to this disinformation (propaganda) thread entirely. Happy to comply with your disinformation (propaganda) wishes, you simply need to make your disinformation (propaganda) wishes more clear.
So now you're trying to read my mind? Problem is that you equate things you don't like as propaganda. You flood this thread with things that are NOT propaganda but just political discourse in order to bury actual propaganda. It's a smart strategy. Then you attack others for pointing this out. There are examples of propaganda on the left. It will be nice when you actual post them instead of the junk you do.
Here is an example of real propaganda by Judicial watch. It's putting out misinformation (false claim about voter registration fraud) that is disputed by the Iowa Secretary of State (who is a Republican): https://thehill.com/policy/technolo...ate-disputes-viral-misinformation-about-voter
