HEY U FKN WORTHLESS LOSERS THAT SHOULD BE GETTING ME COFFEE: TELL SOMEBODY UR PISSED OFF FOR PUSHING "MUH RUSSIA"
until then, u are irrelevant and should be getting me coffee, its that simple
HEY U FKN WORTHLESS LOSERS THAT SHOULD BE GETTING ME COFFEE: TELL SOMEBODY UR PISSED OFF FOR PUSHING "MUH RUSSIA"
until then, u are irrelevant and should be getting me coffee, its that simple
GET ME COFFEE. I dont even drink coffee, get me coffee 300x a day so u dont make anybodys day worse
"Sir heres ur coffee"
"Ok thanks go get me coffee and stop bothering me"
This is ur role in life until further notice JFC
many ppl ITT who believe everything the democrats say about the emails that show them being scamming pos have called me a retard
HEY LIBTARDS WHATS 1 MINUS 0 OR IS THAT TOO TOUGH FOR U
I tell u what, I was bombed tonight and asked a cpl Democrats who said they hate trump what they thought of "Russia" and they said "ugh, its a democrat story"
AND U? FKN PATHETIC I NEVER WANT TO SEE THAT WORD AGAIN
ALSO LOL @ LORD OF THE FRAUD, U GUYS ARE SO FAR BEHIND UR BASICALLY A MONKEY
ROFL SECONDARY HEADLINE AT CNN.COM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/08/polit...ach/index.html
"The onetime mistress of former deputy Republican National Committee Finance Chairman Elliott Broidy alleged in newly revealed court documents that she was physically abused by Broidy, and she charges that he was emboldened by President Donald Trump's alleged mistreatment of women and belief that he could get away with it."
CONGRATULATIONS BARACK OBAMA ON UR "ETHICS IN GOVERMENT" AWARD GREAT JOB GREAT SPEECH
This Broidy guy sounds like a scumbag, but LOL at this passage in the court documents:
Mr. Broidy admired Mr. Trump's uncanny ability to sexually abuse woman and get away with it. Mr. Broidy began to hurt Ms. Bechard physically during their sexual activities -- touching her in ways to which she did not consent.
pe
Sounds like typical lawyer-speak, sensationalizing court documents for maximum emotional effect.
I obviously don't know this Broidy guy, but I highly doubt that he "admired Trump's uncanny ability to sexually abuse women and get away with it".
More likely Broidy was just a perv who enjoyed rough sex and S&M stuff, and probably his wife wasn't on board for it. So he got this mistress and acted out those fantasies on her.
Not defending the guy, but I doubt any of this has to do with Trump.
Do people even still watch/read CNN?
If I want liberal spin on a story I go to MSNBC. They obviously have an agenda, but they seem to be interested in actually reporting news with some level of integrity.
At this point I consider CNN and the NYT just straight Breitbart level propaganda, with no integrity or intellectual honesty at all.
Verm, I want to think you are worth reading, but saying NYT is equivalent to CNN/Breitbart then following up with "no integrity or intellectual honesty at all" doesn't put you in a good spot. To me, it is epic nonsense, but PLEASE redeem yourself.
Please post how NYT just pumps out non-factual shit.
Please entertain me, as I would most appreciate being informed.
Supposedly the White House has the author down to "a few possible individuals".
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/07/polit...rch/index.html
Here is a very quick example. It is one of many I could come up with, as it is pretty indicative of how the NYT works.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/s...-for-life.html
This is a hit piece written about Jordan Peterson. It isn't an op-ed. It is "journalism" (at least for the NYT). Peterson said the woman who interviewed him followed him around and interviewed him for 2 days. He says they spent about 5 minutes talking about "enforced monogamy," and it was a very minor part of the interview. He also said she understood exactly what he was communicating, and she intentionally took him out of context and basically flat out lied with the truth. He also said she wrote about nothing they spent most of the time discussing. It was obvious she came in with a narrative, and she twisted some minor stuff he said completely out of context to shape that narrative.
This is what the NYT does. They may not be as liberal as Breitbart with publishing work that is completely false, but they have no problem being intellectually dishonest with the truth. Is this better? You could actually argue it is worse, because when push comes to shove in a court of law Breitbart will admit they are not real journalism, but the NYT will keep up the facade and pretend they aren't intellectually dishonest propaganda.
This is what you must not do when critiquing anything.
Jordan Peterson says this. Ok, what does the reporter say?
There are two sides to every story. Peterson does not have some pass whereby anything he says is accurate or true.
Unless you have the other side to the story you can't be confident in your judgement
The New York Times has admitted to changing its editorial policy and standards simply because they oppose Trump.
New York Times is to the left what Breitbart is to the right.
Good chance this is a bluff. Best move WH could do is leak that they have it narrowed down to a few people, whether it's true or not. There's a good chance the writer won't be able to continue functioning normally.
I feel like it's around even money we learn who wrote it by the end of the month. Surely they will have to go into hiding.
Well, in this case it is pretty cut and dry. Jordan Peterson made a written reply to the article. He basically said the reporter knew exactly what he meant and purposefully twisted his words to fit her narrative. I listen to Jordan Peterson a lot, and he kinda just repeats the same stuff over and over, and his version (which doesn't match what the reporter wrote) is consistent with what he always says, so I am inclined to believe him.
Also, one thing you will not find is the NYT acknowledging that Peterson wrote a concise, articulate reply saying the reporter was being dishonest. Because they aren't in the business of reporting the truth. They are in the business of pushing their own narrative.
He also said the entire 2 days they were together the reporter was very cordial with him and they talked about a lot of stuff in a respectful fashion. He said when she wrote the article she completely changed and got very confrontational and judgmental, and on top of that she ignored 95% of what he said and just focused on pushing her own narrative, which covered about 5 minutes of their 2 day conversation. Basically a straight ambush.
There are currently 12 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 12 guests)