Black Lives Matter has increased racial tension, 55%

[Dashinka 24,697]

1 hour ago, moxy said:

Nuance is neither of your best qualities. There might be a Udemy course you could take to help you read more critically.

 

My position on the MSM has not changed. To be clear, traditional news organizations get it mostly right. When they get it wrong, they typically correct. When they don't correct, they are held to account by other organizations. It's a system that works most of the time. Sometimes it doesn't. But to say that they've all fallen into some kind of bizarre alternate reality is to just sheepishly press the "I believe" button that Mr. Trump and his buddies has set before you.

 

I was not arguing my views on the MSM when I tried to have a conversation with Burnt, because I am an adult and I can set aside my own point of views in order to further a conversation. But again, if you want to do a circus gymnastic performance just to be able to own the libz, hey whatever gives you that little shot of dopamine. Maybe I'll setup a OnlyFans channel where you can pay to watch me cry at my keyboard at getting owned so hard.

 

The reason the NYT never retracted the Russian collusion story is because there is nothing to retract. Connections between the Trump campaign and agents of the Russian government during the 2016 election are well documented by the Special Counsel and the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. Maybe you should ask why the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee hasn't issued a retraction.

You do realize that those "other organizations" are the very blogs and alternate sources you claim to find untrustworthy.  The main point is that the MSM has gone more biased in their reporting way before Trump ever showed up.  Heck, Bernie Goldberg recognized that even before Trump ever showed up.

 

Yes, Mueller had a full telling of the Russian Collusion narrative because an incoming Administration should never talk to any foreign contacts during the transition period.

[moxy 1,051]

7 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

You do realize that those "other organizations" are the very blogs and alternate sources you claim to find untrustworthy.  The main point is that the MSM has gone more biased in their reporting way before Trump ever showed up.  Heck, Bernie Goldberg recognized that even before Trump ever showed up.

 

Yes, Mueller had a full telling of the Russian Collusion narrative because an incoming Administration should never talk to any foreign contacts during the transition period.

It's kind of ironic that in the very same post you lump all traditional media as biased,  you parrot the right-wing party line that all the Trump campaign was doing was talking to foreign dignitaries, completely ignoring the fact that these contacts were agents of the Russian government, not credentialed diplomats.

 

The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee also wondered why the Trump campaign was talking with Russian agents, not credentialed diplomats.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

5 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

You do realize that those "other organizations" are the very blogs and alternate sources you claim to find untrustworthy.  The main point is that the MSM has gone more biased in their reporting way before Trump ever showed up.  Heck, Bernie Goldberg recognized that even before Trump ever showed up.

 

Yes, Mueller had a full telling of the Russian Collusion narrative because an incoming Administration should never talk to any foreign contacts during the transition period.

Wonder if the Guardian ever got proof of Manafort visiting Assange yet.. 2 years later and no retraction there either. 

 

Didn't they just say the testimony of Bobulinski was Russian too? 

 

Those Russians sure are everywhere! 

 

The walls are closing in! 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

11 minutes ago, moxy said:

It's kind of ironic that in the very same post you lump all traditional media as biased,  you parrot the right-wing party line that all the Trump campaign was doing was talking to foreign dignitaries, completely ignoring the fact that these contacts were agents of the Russian government, not credentialed diplomats.

 

The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee also wondered why the Trump campaign was talking with Russian agents, not credentialed diplomats.

They weren't really wondering, just like with Senate Judiciary pretending Christine Ford was "credible" and worth hearing from, they were doing so to placate less than intelligent people. 

 

Hint: It's called a charade. 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,293]

Or you could be thoroughly wrong about Dr. Ford. Many of us found her highly credible, particularly those of us who have been sexually assaulted as teenagers. Unfortunately her claims can never be tested in court. Since they can't, your belief that she was not credible is simply that -- a belief. As is mine. We saw the same testimony and drew different conclusions. Whether Kavanaugh assaulted her or not cannot be proven at all because the court of public opinion and a confirmation hearing aren't courts that determine these kinds of things.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Well there's a reason after all these years it never went to any court.. civil or criminal, and was timed in the way it was to sit in the court of public opinion to be given politically correct lip service. That's how many people who simultaneously called her accusations "credible" still voted for Kavanaugh. 

 

The logical thing is, when someone has no shred of evidence with an accusation, we presume it's not true. When dozens of people who are in the legal profession pretend it's "credible" when they know it isn't, it's clear why they're doing so.. NB's favorite word.. "optics". People are less than rational. Her accusations never deserved the time of day, but because virtue signaling was more politically rewarding, that was the outcome. 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,697]

50 minutes ago, moxy said:

It's kind of ironic that in the very same post you lump all traditional media as biased,  you parrot the right-wing party line that all the Trump campaign was doing was talking to foreign dignitaries, completely ignoring the fact that these contacts were agents of the Russian government, not credentialed diplomats.

 

The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee also wondered why the Trump campaign was talking with Russian agents, not credentialed diplomats.

Yeah, the President's transition team should not be talking to Russia.  Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the entire narrative pushed by the likes of the NYTimes, and WaPo was completely false and they have as of yet issued any corrections.  Much of the story coming from the dossier from the Hillary campaign's collusion with the UK and Russia was completely false, yet no correction.  I wonder why?  Maybe it has something to do with the NYTimes and WaPo needing to maintain subscriptions and make money.

[Dashinka 24,697]

20 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Or you could be thoroughly wrong about Dr. Ford. Many of us found her highly credible, particularly those of us who have been sexually assaulted as teenagers. Unfortunately her claims can never be tested in court. Since they can't, your belief that she was not credible is simply that -- a belief. As is mine. We saw the same testimony and drew different conclusions. Whether Kavanaugh assaulted her or not cannot be proven at all because the court of public opinion and a confirmation hearing aren't courts that determine these kinds of things.

Well, Kamala found Joe's accuser credible, still wondering how she sleeps at night.  As to Ford, she lost her credibility with her lies which were easily fact checked along with her political activism.

[moxy 1,051]

3 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Much of the story coming from the dossier from the Hillary campaign's collusion with the UK and Russia was completely false, yet no correction.  I wonder why?  Maybe it has something to do with the NYTimes and WaPo needing to maintain subscriptions and make money.

If you think issuing a retraction or a correction would cost the NY Times subscribers, then I don't think you really understand how the news business works. Issuing a retraction is exactly the kind of thing NY Times readers would expect if they got it wrong. If the NY Times stuck to a clearly false story, especially for partisan purposes, THAT is when they would start losing subscribers.

 

And I know you don't want to believe that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russian agents, but even the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee reached this conclusion. The Trump campaign knowingly engaged with Russian agents in 2016. This was not diplomacy. You don't have to like it, and you can still call yourself a Trump supporter even while acknowledging this truth, but it did happen. And that's why the NYT hasn't issued a retraction. Because there is nothing to retract.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Just now, Dashinka said:

Well, Kamala found Joe's accuser credible, still wondering how she sleeps at night. 

 

 

[Dashinka 24,697]

3 minutes ago, moxy said:

If you think issuing a retraction or a correction would cost the NY Times subscribers, then I don't think you really understand how the news business works. Issuing a retraction is exactly the kind of thing NY Times readers would expect if they got it wrong. If the NY Times stuck to a clearly false story, especially for partisan purposes, THAT is when they would start losing subscribers.

 

And I know you don't want to believe that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russian agents, but even the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee reached this conclusion. The Trump campaign knowingly engaged with Russian agents in 2016. This was not diplomacy. You don't have to like it, and you can still call yourself a Trump supporter even while acknowledging this truth, but it did happen. And that's why the NYT hasn't issued a retraction. Because there is nothing to retract.

Considering the NYTimes admitted they get more subscribers when they do negative stories on Trump, yes, I can imagine they may lose a few.  Btw, I don't think your understanding of collusion is correct, but believe what you want.  Now we will have a Xi/Putin puppet in the WH, but I am sure that will be fine for many.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

4 minutes ago, moxy said:

If you think issuing a retraction or a correction would cost the NY Times subscribers, then I don't think you really understand how the news business works. Issuing a retraction is exactly the kind of thing NY Times readers would expect if they got it wrong. If the NY Times stuck to a clearly false story, especially for partisan purposes, THAT is when they would start losing subscribers.

 

And I know you don't want to believe that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russian agents, but even the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee reached this conclusion. The Trump campaign knowingly engaged with Russian agents in 2016. This was not diplomacy. You don't have to like it, and you can still call yourself a Trump supporter even while acknowledging this truth, but it did happen. And that's why the NYT hasn't issued a retraction. Because there is nothing to retract.

 

Citation from the committee.. please.  

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, Dashinka said:

Considering the NYTimes admitted they get more subscribers when they do negative stories on Trump, yes, I can imagine they may lose a few.  Btw, I don't think your understanding of collusion is correct, but believe what you want.  Now we will have a Xi/Putin puppet in the WH, but I am sure that will be fine for many.

If we do wind up with a Xi/Putin puppet, I'll be the first to call it out. I wish the Trump sycophants could say that.

[Ban Hammer 13,469]

5 posts removed for tos violations, the same number removed for quoting those posts.

one member has received admin action for baiting/trolling.

[Dashinka 24,697]

Just now, moxy said:

If we do wind up with a Xi/Putin puppet, I'll be the first to call it out. I wish the Trump sycophants could say that.

I will believe it when I see it, but considering the Biden family's strong financial ties to China, and the Eastern European energy industry, the evidence is already there.  As to Trump being a Russian puppet, still waiting to see the proof on that one.