Aug 19 2016
Regarding the election, how much of a factor is media bias in terms of influencing voters?
The difference between news organizations and opinion or propaganda stations have blurred in recent decades, but especially in this election cycle. The Trump campaign has now undergone a third makeover (since April), taking on Stephen Bannon of Breitbart as his new attack bulldog. They have come out with fake medical records on Hillary Clinton purporting she has a “grave health crisis and severe neurological impairments”. These lies are meant to influence voters away from supporting her, as were the ad nauseam commentaries by pundits about a LEGAL email server Hillary had when Secretary of State, and innumerable months of coverage regarding bogus investigations into the embassy attack on Benghazi, accusing Hillary of being “personally responsible” for the deaths of four men at the embassy, (which Congress found to be under-secured, after they denied requests for more monies for beefing up embassy security!) The Secretary of State does not command defense operations! The news anchors know better, even though the “negative innuendo” seeps in from other sources. The blatant lies, myths perpetuated and dirty tricks receiving constant coverage have blurred the lines in the minds of viewers. As it concerns Hillary, it is misinformation overload! As for Trump, he is like an obsessive dog, digging himself in a deep hole and cannot stop!
Aug 31 2016
Trump and others have called the delivery of $400 million to Iran a payment in exchange for hostages. What do you think?
President Obama announced in January that a deal was reached to halt Iran’s nuclear program. He also announced that a separate negotiation had been reached on a decades old debt dispute; that $400 million in frozen assets would be returned, plus $1.7 billion interest, which was way less than Iran was seeking. (The Shah paid the U.S. millions of dollars for weaponry that was never delivered, as he was deposed by the 1979 Islamic Revolution. In 1981 the 2 countries agreed the international tribunal, The Hague, would settle the legal claim.) Our president agreed to settle this old score in order to halt their nuclear capabilities. A 3rd negotiation was for the release of 4 Americans; the New York Times stated, “all three issues came together in a carefully choreographed push that many hoped would set the stage for the constructive relations between the two nations; the administration withheld the payment to ensure that Iran didn’t renege on its promise to free the detainees”, which was strong, smart diplomacy! Our president said, “We do not pay ransom. We didn’t here and we won’t in the future!” Anyone using this situation for political gain, instilling in the minds of terrorists that we do pay ransoms — puts all Americans at risk! (It is, however, NOT against our law IF a president decided to pay a ransom!)
By spiritspeak • Community Roundtable 0