Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
when the very core of your argument is proven false...you should be used to it by now to be honest.
I'm saying I believe the WAPO, unlike Brietbart for instance, has high journalistic standards and doesn't run a story without a reasonable expectation of proof. I know in your world, any newspaper or news channel that doesn't worship your Daddy is seen as suspect, but WAPO and NY times for instance, are among most respected in the world and achieved that respect through the quality and integrity of their work; and again I know that in your world these are suspect b/c they don't act subservient to Daddy and challenge the confirmation bias Trumpsters bathe themselves in daily on Fox News, Brietbart, and the like.
Well, as a daily reader of the Washington Post, I do have to note that it's run an anti-Trump editorial every day for over a year now.
Yet another WaPo story based on nothing but anonymous sources.
...according to two people briefed on the decision...
When will you guys learn when it comes to this made up nonsense?
/thread
I'm wondering what you have against doing some research? There sure is enough information to cross reference the Washington Post's article. I guess alternative facts and conspiracy theories are your only source of information?
It's interesting how Kelly Ann Conway declined having the secret service follow her around on the same day. Bizarre.
Just for grins and to broaden your horizons Google Secret Service releases Mar-A-Lago visitor log in ethics suit. Seriously. You need to read more.
It makes sense that Donald Jr. would want to avoid having the secret service know any of his future contacts, but I wonder why Kelly Ann declined as well? Sorry but I just don't buy that her threat level has decreased. Anyone connected to the Trump administration is at risk. Look at that loony tunes that tried to kill all of those Republican senators. There are still plenty of those hate fueled morons out there.
I'm sure they will hire a private security team. I just wonder if Mueller will subpoena them as well?
You can run, but you can't hide from justice.
Pinky swear now Waldo that you will read that article about Mar-A-Lago so we can have an intelligent conversation about it some day, because now you just sound like a broken record with the same old opinion.
when the very core of your argument is proven false...
Wapo Article is based on "anonymous sources".
i.e. There is no truth to it without proof. This is the way investigative journalism works. Otherwise it is tabloidism. WaPo was once the former, now it's just the latter.
i.e. There is no truth to it without proof. This is the way investigative journalism works. Otherwise it is tabloidism. WaPo was once the former, now it's just the latter.
That is my argument. What's false about that?
again you've moved the goal post. Your point initially was anonymous source = false. I pointed out how time and time and time and time and again you've been proven wrong on this point, how each time WAPO, NY Times, etc posted an article with anonymous sources regarding Trump admin it has come to fruition. Yet, since you can't refute that you change your argument or move the goal posts. Typical with a Trumpster when confronted with facts that don't feed your confirmation bias.
Oh yes. But because of your own confirmation bias you can't see the "news" articles are editorializing. That's an editor problem.
no- I can actually see the difference between an editorial and a news article. Just because a news article states something you don't like doesn't make it fake news.
no- I can actually see the difference between an editorial and a news article. Just because a news article states something you don't like doesn't make it fake news.
No one said fake news except you, but a news article can be written, and this happens on a daily basis with the Post, where the political philosophy of the author is apparent.
I can see it from both sides. You apparently can't see it because you agree with the author. Hence your confirmation bias.
Today's article on the Georgia Tech shooting would be an example. Less than 1/3 of the article was about the incident. The rest was basically "See how the cops **** up constantly".
That's an editorial decision.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm wondering what you have against doing some research? There sure is enough information to cross reference the Washington Post's article. I guess alternative facts and conspiracy theories are your only source of information? 
