President Donald J Trump
- Thread starter saint
- Start date
Washington Post article: They retracted the article because they could not validate the source. That sounds like responsible journalism after recognizing a lapse, no? Not "Fake News", but the right has confused stories that are complete bullshit with stories you don't agree with.
NY Times article: The reporter relied on leaked information from Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy's committtee. The source had it wrong. NY Times had to post a retraction and explain what happened.
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.c...ccuracies-how-it-happened-and-what-next/?_r=0
You don't see this as any different than the click bait BS being generated by right-wing propaganda sites that Jaxx, Skulnik, and Hedgy eat up? You won't see retractions, because they were never trying to report, just lead readers. Look up some of Jaxx's posts, he's completely lost on the concept of Fake News because the right wing propaganda machine is telling him the Fake News is what they see coming from actual news sites. It's a joke, but that's how you get dumb people to vote for a reality star. You trick them.
"Neither reported fairly on Trump and his candidacy" (Lowell)
-Do not confuse stories you don't like with stories that aren't fair.
-Was Clinton being "unfairly" reported on with the Podesta email leaks and FBI investigation? If I were taking your position, I'd say ABSOLUTELY, but I'm not.
Think about it. Seriously.
Was Clinton being "unfairly" reported on with the Podesta email leaks and FBI investigation? If I were taking your position, I'd say ABSOLUTELY, but I'm not.
These were the PODESTA EMAILS, not the Hillary EMAILS, Hillary didn't have ANY EMAILS exposed on the PODESTA WIKILEAKS EMAILS.
These were the PODESTA EMAILS, not the Hillary EMAILS, Hillary didn't have ANY EMAILS exposed on the PODESTA WIKILEAKS EMAILS.
I know you aren't the brightest bulb, but you clearly missed the point. Go ahead and add "Hillary's emails" to my sentence and let me know how that changes things. Better yet, explain how that changes the point!!! I'd love to hear you explain your thoughts!:142smilie
They are DIFFERENT things, Hillary wasn't part of the WikiLeaks dumps, it was about the things her MINIONS were doing, hopefully we'll hear about Hillary's Emails and the Clinton Foundation and PAY for PLAY, O'Shitstain leaves office in less than a month, maybe the FBI will UNLOAD on the Clinton Crime Family, O'Shitstain has been GIVEN a PASS on his EMAILS to Hillary, on her PRIVATE SERVER.
So, you don't have anything other than speculation about the future of Hillary Clinton.....which doesn't answer my question and nobody gives a shit about Hillary anymore. The only reason you keep focusing on Hillary is because you can't focus on Trump. He's not the candidate you wanted and he's making ridiculous appointments to his cabinet.....I'd focus on HRC too, lol.
Who would have guessed that a reality TV star would be a terrible President?
First to be impeached in first term. :facepalm:
First to be impeached in first term. :facepalm:
