Well there is an investigation so it's not really going to end until the investigation ends which is why Trump wants to it end, regardless if you think he's guilty or not, because until it does the innuendo will never go away.

With Bengazi the initial investigation said exactly what everyone knew, that poor planning and mistakes caused the ambassador to be in a precarious position and if the initial investigation says that Trump's campaign didn't collude with the Russians I think it'll mostly go away except for the conspiracy weirdos. Maybe Democrat lawmakers decide to continue "investigating" for political hay after the FBI is done but I guess we'll have to see

Ok, completely reasonable. Now, do you think news outlets like CNN are covering the story in a reasonable manner? I mean, their slogan when they goto commerical is "attack on our democracy". Like, is that legit in your eyes?

It's so absurd I really can't watch it anymore. I've loved CNN since I was a teenager. Since James Earl Jones, for God's sake.



Wtf, they've completely lost their minds.

If you didn't know CNN got a new CEO who comes from reality TV and has been steering the ship towards more sensationalism. That's why he hired a lot of Trump slappies who have no credibility but make for sensational TV of people yelling at each other as well as lowering the checks as to allow more sensational but less vetted stories through. It's a bit like pro wrestling with CNN playing the heel. Trump has someone to take on, CNN, and CNN gets to become someone who's standing up to Trump while both get to profit off the conflict.


All news agencies have to have a bit of sensationalism to sell things so it's always a choice between hard fact based double checked pieces that take a lot of time and are slow or more quick sensationalism that is quicker and probably will get eyes. Where they draw the line means how much credibility you should probably give them.

CNN has been terrible for a long time now, imo.

I asked you to be specific. Twice. Because I knew your unlettered ass would want to respond with this sort of hand-wavy bull****.

What, specifically, are you referencing?

What horse****, specifically?

Like it's just that wil needs a Safe Space from the media meanies saying bad stuff about Daddy. It's pure kneejerk emotion.

I think it's a shame. CNN was my go-to channel forever. Now it's unwatchable.

The left's hypocrisy is indefensible. You think I'm an outlier? Plenty of people have left the left. It's an embarrassment.

LOL Valerie Plame aside (still undefeated!!!!11), while there are those who want to hang Edward Snowden on both sides, let me ask you something wil: who is more likely to think Snowden is a patriot, liberals or conservatives?

To the authoritarian bootlicker, "the media" is a single homogeneous entity to be demonized at every turn, because they criticize the Dear Leader. This leads to the conclusion that David Farenthold and Erin Burnett are exactly the same, and because one is garbage the other must also be garbage, because they're all part of "the media". If one cannot be trusted, none of them can be, there is no difference at all.

wil is, of course, exactly the person that defended Nixon right up until his final day, because the dumb fake liberal media and hacks like Woodward and Bernstein just wanted to tear him down.

This is how authoritarian bootlickers like wil set up their own reality that allows them to ignore what a failure and a joke the Leader is that they hold so dear.

Dude, it is impossible for wil to be specific about anything. All he can do is retreat to these same dumb blind assertions he falls back to in every argument he's ever made:

These are all just from the last page but there are probably thousands of posts wil has made in this forum echoing the same idiocy that he has very, very strong feels about and can never seem to articulate a coherent argument on. Ask wil for some facts - the recent argument about social mobility was a perfect example - and he'll give a good college try at reading **** and not being an idiot, before quickly giving up:

Turns out facts are too hard for wil so he's back to the usual:

Total rejection of facts (because they curiously seem to never agree with him), even the ones he tried posting; just boring, blindly asserted platitudes. It's the only way he can make sense of the world, by dumbing it down to the same 5th grade understanding he has of everything.

I know reading isn't his bag, but you'd think wil would at least be semi-conversant about recent history.

The left.
I don't agree with any of this. The media is obviously not one entitty. I fully support a through investigation of the Trump adminstration.

What's the issue again? What point are you making here?

Pop quiz, wil: without looking at wikipdeia, can you describe what the Plame scandal was all about? Bonus points if you can explain how the **** the Obama administration was involved.

I have a fundamental issue with how the left uses data. While that may sound humorous over time I've grown suspicious of all data presented by your side. In regards to economic mobility I think that's probably due to a combination of societal factors and an overall increase in wealth.

And yes, I do not believe economic mobility is difficult in the United States, if you make the right choices. Most people are morons and make the wrong choices. Sorry.

Typical authoritarian excuse- unprovable cynicism of the nature of 'most people'.

Thanks for being honest, wil. This is the point:

Okay, so going back to your previous post which argued this:

If we take your mistake out of this and replace Plame with Snowden, turns out liberal beliefs on this aren't as inconsistent as you'd have had us believe earlier. So, one false argument.


Again, going back to your posts earlier:

Who is "they" if you don't think the media is one entity, wil? A CNN editor who does health stories or something was caught on tape saying his network overhypes Russia. If you don't think the media is all one single entity then you have a lot of work to do to explain why this CNN health editor's comment means that...
- every single anonymous source referenced by people like David Farenthold or the rest of the news media is false
- all the news reported by all the media is "made up"

Another false argument.

You know that if we go back to stories written months ago about Michael Flynn and stuff, a lot of those cited anonymous sources discussing his problems that eventually turned out to be true, right?

You're just spouting words here, there's no logic or facts behind any of this. It's you and your dumb feels being typed in all capital letters, like always, because that's all you and your 5th grade understanding have to fall back to.

wil flabbergasted by inflation ITT.

Also, yes, that is the point of the taxing and redistribution bro. The post you responded to ADMITS that globalization has all of these problems if there is not a reasonable tax system.

Here's a relevant story from May that I remember because of being in Paris when H.R. McMaster went on TV to claim the anonymously sourced story was BS. NYT's reporting on Trump casually giving the Russian ambassador highly classified information:

You can just hear wil and the other idiot Trumpkins being like "hurr durr anonymous official, fake news". You can hear them redoubling their laughter when the Trump administration hilariously sent an official on live television to say "I was in the room, it didn't happen", because they're so oblivious that they don't think their leader lies to them more than the news media does.

The anonymous source was right, Trump later admitted this happened (throwing McMaster under the bus in the process, LOL) trying to defend his actions on Twitter!!!!!

Why are you thinking me for being honest? I'm almost always honest.


I am specifically talking about CNN in this case. I think it permeates across all of media because it's about ratings. After the election media outlets saw interest in the Russia scandal. As time has gone on it seems clear to me it's overblown. Flynn himself may have some issues but I do not believe it goes further than that. If there is, we will see what comes out in the investigation.

I predict nothing will come of it and the entire thing is just a show. So far the coverage of Trump has been laughable, especially by CNN but by most media outlets. I do not believe any of it until proven, and I think I have good reason to believe it's nonsense - because people have said so themselves.

And yes, I believe that least some of these unnamed sources are complete lies.

So your argument is if one story is accurate they are all accurate?

LOL wil thinks this is an argument or that people give a **** about his dumb opinions

lolwil

You've called it all "made up", it only takes one example to prove you wrong and that they are not all made up. There are, of course, many more examples of anonymously sourced reporting that later turned out to be accurate (e.g. everything on Flynn), but this was the most recent one that came to mind.

Here's another, actually: I think it was anonymously reported that Mueller was investigating Trump. Trump later confirmed it, again via Twitter, lol he is so dumb.

Something like the 77 cents on the dollar stat is misleading, but that's an idiotic reason to be a Trumpkin or even generic Republican. The use of stats by the left and right are apples and oranges and the right is using a bunch of really putrid apples. It's not even close. The people who use it (the interest groups themselves vs. the actual administrations), the scope, the frequency, and the unapologetic misuse, distortions, and lies from the GOP are in a totally different league. It's the difference between looking to phrase things in a way that benefit your interest and being misleading vs. manufacturing lies on an industrial scale.

lolwil, keep 'em coming, bootlicker.

To be honest, CNN was terrible when I visited the USA in 1996.