Here’s How The Media Are Lying Right Now: CNN’s Reliable Propaganda Edition
CNN's Brian Stelter self-identifies as a reporter, but all he does is lie on behalf of the media, Kamala Harris, and the Democrat Party.CNN's Brian Stelter self-identifies as a reporter, but all he does is lie on behalf of the media, Kamala Harris, and the Democrat Party.PROOF that New York Times 'conservative' voice Bret Stephens is a phony
On a recent episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” guests Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC and Bret Stephens, who Dave Rubin says is the “New York Times’ quote unquote conservative but will not support Trump,” sparred over Kamala Harris’ complete avoidance of interviews and wishy-washy positions on policy.
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
“If I’m an undecided voter, I’m never going to vote for Trump, but I’m not sure I want to vote for Kamala, and my fear is that she doesn’t really have a very good command of what she wants to do as president,” said Stephens, adding that it would be “great for her to sit down with [Maher] or George Stephanopoulos or Stephanie.”
“As if she’d sit down with me,” Maher scoffed as the audience howled in laughter.
“George W. Bush 25 years ago was asked if he could name the president of Pakistan and other people. He had no idea, and people said this guy has no command of foreign policy, and it turned out to be a prescient set of questions. It’s not too much to ask Kamala, say, are you for a Palestinian state if Hamas is going to run that state?” Stephens continued.
“Okay, and let’s say you don’t like her answer. Are you going to vote for Donald Trump? Kamala Harris is not running for perfect; she’s running against Trump. We have two choices, and so there are some things you might not know her answer to. And in 2024, unlike 2016, for a lot of the American people, we know exactly what Trump will do, who he is, and the kind of threat he is to democracy,” Ruhle said.
“The problem that a lot of people have with Kamala is we don't know her answer to anything,” Stephens countered.
“But you know [Trump’s] answer to everything!” Ruhle fired back.
“And that's why I would never vote for him and people shouldn't vote for him, but people also are expected to have some idea of what the program is of the person you're supposed to vote for,” Stephens concluded.
Dave and special co-host Clay Travis laugh at the idea that Stephens is labeled as “conservative.”
“He will not vote for Trump under any circumstances but in essence could vote for [Kamala],” says Dave, asking, “How is it possible you could be remotely conservative, believe in capitalism, believe that boys and girls are different, believe that you should have a border ... and perhaps vote for Kamala Harris?”
“I don’t even understand what the fear of Trump is,” says Travis, who’s interacted with Trump on multiple occasions. “The idea that he is Hitler is the most ridiculously absurd argument ever. ... He wants to have a more secure border; he wants lower crime; he wants to avoid war all around the world and keep our soldiers safe.”
“And there's a track record of him doing it,” adds Dave.
To hear more of the conversation, watch the clip above.
Want more from Dave Rubin?
To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Losing Is Not Winning, No Matter What The Media’s Favorite ‘Conservatives’ Keep Saying
You see this victory-via-failure scam among the media's favorite 'conservatives' all the time.NY Times columnist gets slammed after admitting he was wrong about Trump voters: 'An absolute masterpiece of idiocy'
New York Times columnist Bret Stephens offered readers a mea culpa this week involving former President Donald Trump, a reflection that enraged Trump's detractors.
What did Stephens say?
In a column published on Thursday, Stephens admitted the "worst line" he ever wrote was one in which he outright disparaged Trump supporters.
"If by now you don’t find Donald Trump appalling, you’re appalling," Stephens wrote in August 2015.
Stephens explained that he regrets "almost nothing of what I said about the man and his close minions." But, he continued, "the broad swipe at his voters caricatured them and blinkered me."
"It also probably did more to help than hinder Trump’s candidacy," Stephens wrote. "Telling voters they are moral ignoramuses is a bad way of getting them to change their minds."
Amazingly, Stephens then pinpointed one of the central reasons Trump won the 2016 presidential election and why so many Americans still support him.
According to Stephens, Trump's supporters viewed him as the antithesis to elitism, which has for years been forcing its agenda onto average Americans.
"I could have thought a little harder about the fact that, in my dripping condescension toward his supporters, I was also confirming their suspicions about people like me — people who talked a good game about the virtues of empathy but practice it only selectively; people unscathed by the country’s problems yet unembarrassed to propound solutions," Stephens admitted.
"I also could have given Trump voters more credit for nuance," he wrote. "For every in-your-face MAGA warrior there were plenty of ambivalent Trump supporters, doubtful of his ability and dismayed by his manner, who were willing to take their chances on him because he had the nerve to defy deeply flawed conventional pieties."
What was the reaction?
Critics of Trump slammed and mocked Stephens.
- "To paraphrase Orwell, 'There are some columns so absurd only intellectuals can write them,' and this column is Exhibit A," Tom Nichols said.
- "Is there going to be a column where the @nytopinion editors admit they were wrong about hiring Bret Stephens?" New York University professor Eric Klinenberg reacted.
- "For aspiring writers, especially POC, who feel insecure or doubt their abilities & talents, just remember Bret Stephens has a Pulitzer & is paid an obscene amount of money to be a NYT columnist. I've been in this game a long time. Trust me. The bar is low. Hop on over & join us," liberal writer Wajahat Ali reacted.
- "Jesus God, Bret Stephens has a real case as the dumbest man in public life. What an absolute masterpiece of idiocy," another person reacted.
- "What's that, Lassie? Bret Stephens is an a**hole and is trapped at the bottom of a well? Good dog, Lassie. Go lie down in the shade," author Benjamin Dreyer reacted.
- "Bret Stephens is just Jordan Peterson, except somehow even dumber," another person reacted.
However, not all reaction was negative.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), for example, expressed gratitude for Stephens' admission.
"I say this unironically: This is an excellent—and much needed—column by Bret Stephens in the NYT," Cruz wrote on Twitter.
I Was Wrong About The Media. They’ve Always Been A Pretentious Gang Of Losers
Let's talk about those 'I was wrong about...' articles in the New York Times.NYT’s Bret Stephens Becomes First Corporate Media Figure To Acknowledge Russian Collusion Was A ‘Hoax’
If Stephens is admitting there was no Trump-Russia collusion, every outlet that has refused to admit any error is even worse than he is.J.D. Vance And The New Right Are Racking Up Wins, While The Establishment Stabs At Their Backs
'Confronted with an established revolution, the conservative must seek to change the status quo; he has no other means of affirming his tradition.'Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com