The Trump / Russia Controversy

[TotalyMeow]

You're thinking of an opinion piece they ran by someone about that time if I remember right. I'll look for it, but this is the main article they had on [Sonny Perdue].

I look forward to seeing it.

This is a local police story. This article had almost zero to do with anything nationally except trying to show an increase in gun seizures in DC. They quoted DCPD's list. DCPD's list included the airgun as a gun. Why is this a thing even? Where are you getting that this is somehow a thing? What right wing nonsense site/mouthpiece are you getting this from?

What matter if it's national news or if you think it's a 'thing'? I'm just pointing out an example of bad journalism in support of why I'm now skeptical of all MSM news articles.

Here's the Joe Rogin opinion piece:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/jos ... 2e897fdcf7

It WAS the largest firing/resignation of top State department aides ever.

Here's a a non-opinion piece about it:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ns/514550/

So, it's okay for Joe Rogin to print a fusillade of lies and claim them truth so long as it's labeled 'opinion'. Doesn't make him any less of a liar. There's nothing in the body of the article to indicate that any of it is opinion, it's all stated as if fact.

The Atlantic does print a much more respectable article, but notice how that article also does not fall so far in with the 'chaos in the WH' narrative that is being shoved down our throats and which you have entirely bought into (though they do quite Rogin's opinion piece as if it were real news, notice that?). Here's a quote:

The resignations are not, primarily, a political story. They will further the impression among Trump’s critics that his administration is a chaotic mess staffed, when it’s staffed at all, by greenhorn newcomers. But the mass of voters don’t tend to get all that excited about internal managers at the State Department, especially since Trump and other Republicans have spent years railing against bureaucrats, and particularly bureaucrats who served under Hillary Clinton. If you think Foggy Bottom has been a disastrous mess, then house-cleaning might be a good thing. Kennedy’s name is not a household one, but he did come in for harsh criticism in the House report on the September 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, arguably coming in for worse censure than Clinton herself.

But someone has to run the State Department, to keep the gears of diplomacy turning, and Rogin reports that the latest resignations are part of a “mass exodus of senior foreign service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.” In early January, The New York Times reported that Trump’s team would not grant grace periods to any outgoing ambassadors, a break with tradition. A source dismissed concerns about their departures to Fox News, pointing out that many ambassadors are political appointees whose major qualification for their jobs was raising lots of money for Barack Obama: “The number twos are career foreign service officers and more than capable of stepping into the roles.”

You keep saying they are "rewriting" these articles but that's not true. If they edit it, they say so on the bottom of the article. I think you're misunderstanding how this works.

Maybe you don't know what an Opinion section is. Maybe you're not understanding their 'Opinion' section versus their main section. Most of these articles you're posting are clearly labeled 'Opinion' section. Their opinion pieces ARE part of the Washington Post but they're not full news articles. They are the opinion and political of the writer. They always have republican and conservative opinion writers on them as well. David Brooks, George Will, Charles Krauthammer and Joe Scarborough are all conservative opinion writers either on staff or contributing writers to the Washington Post.

All they often say is that they made a change. They don't always say what they changed. It can be significant portions of the article.

I am well aware of the difference between opinion and fact and how such things should be reported, and again, these supposed opinion pieces are being reported as if they are real news and are being quoted by other journalists as 'reports', not 'editorials'. Does that make it okay, if a lie is first labeled an opinion and then quoted in a 'serious' news article that is supposed to be unbiased fact? Is it okay for a journalist to tweet a lie as if it is true, wait an hour or so while it gets retweeted 50,000 times, then tweet an "oops, my mistake" that they know will get retweeted like 400 times because the truth isn't as fun to spread so that the lie becomes established in people's minds as truth? Do you really not know this is happening?

If every single national newspaper, cable news channel and news magazine is reporting on the chaos within the Trump administration then there is chaos within the administration. Why are you denying this? Even Kelly is saying in open testimony he was not part of the roll out and that it was handled badly.

Again, yes, the damn rollout was handled badly, but that does not constitute chaos, okay? I know the established media narrative is 'chaos' but that still doesn't make it true. You know how much they hate Trump and that Trump makes no secret of his dislike of their bad practices and their extreme bias. Yes, it is entirely possible for the vast majority of the largest media outlets to all be telling the same lies at once.

If you disagree with what every legitimate news source in the country is saying about Trump and think they are "lying" to the American people, the problem isn't with them, it's with you. Where are you getting your news from? Are you embarrassed to tell us? You've quoted at least 3 Hannity "FakNoo" attacks on the WaPost so far here. If you're not getting them from him you must be getting them second hand from somewhere.

The problem here is, how legitimate are most of them anymore? You point out that I disagree with them, but it shouldn't be a question of agreement or disagreement. It should be them reporting the unbiased facts so as to inform the public so that the public may make their own judgements and opinions. Agreement with what the media says shouldn't come into it.

I haven't quoted Hannity at all as I don't watch his show. Perhaps he's just reporting the same things I've found myself online? I'm not sure why it's important where I get my news, but okay... I do a lot of Google searches when I hear about a subject to see what I can find out and I do read articles by papers like the WP and NYT and Atlantic and others trying to sift the facts from the ****. I often listen to the Ben Shaprio podcast on Daily Wire (he's conservative) and the Sargon of Akkad podcast (British, but talks a lot of American politics too, libertarian/liberal). I don't always agree with either of them, but that's good, and it does give me some idea of what's happening in the world so I have a starting point of where to look. I also skim the newsfeed on Daily Wire and look at articles that seem interesting and I do my best to confirm what is in them before believing it. It's a lot more work than I should have to do to get the news too.

No legitimate news source is talking about assassination. That is a lie.

No, CNN has been consistently doing their best to make Trump look like a dangerous madman and Hitler wannabe who is a danger to America. They claim he supports Neo-Nazis and the KKK. They've portrayed him as a horrible racist. They want people to think Trump is a puppet of Russia, that he'll start a nuclear war in a tiff, that the entire government is in chaos, and that he is just outright evil. Others have been doing it too, but CNN is the worst. And then there's that Irish magazine that published an article asking outright if assassinating Trump might be the best thing to do.

The general public DOES NOT APPROVE of what he is doing. That is a lie. Every poll has him underwater. I posted that earlier and you saw it. Why are you unable to believe FACTS that are right in front of your face. Are you that hypnotized by his nonsense that you are no longer capable of rational thought. Do the crowds REALLY look bigger than Obama's to you? If you are unable to discern fact from reality even when it's put right in front of you, then you are delusionally following an authoritarian shuckster just like all those 'good germans' and 'loyal italians' before you. I highly recommend you take a step back and regain your cognitive dissonance (if you ever had it in the first place) and realize that he is not a great leader and not fit for the presidency.

You must have missed the poll politico just did and I linked in "Trump's Policies" that shows the people actually DO like what he's doing.
I... long ago agreed that it is obvious the physical crowd was about average for an inauguration, while Obama's was huge. I only objected to reports that deceptively made the place look like a ghost town.
I notice that you have completely and unquestioningly bought into the narrative of Trump as a nazi, fascist, racist, evil, spawn of Satan. Good job, you're everything the Democratic party and MSM want you to be.

[FTT4eva]

The point here is, all news has a specific agenda.

No news is written without bias.

Stop listening to the news, sit back and enjoy the ride of life.

[Champie]

Good job, you're everything the Democratic party and MSM want you to be.

Meow, fine post, but I have one disagreement

Claeyt is a White Male, perhaps heterosexual, and unless I missed a class in high school or something, he will eventually be middle-aged.

Claeyt doesn't understand how he will ultimately be devoured by the SJW's he desperately wishes to emulate.

I don't dislike Claeyt, instead I try to extend my compassion to him.


edit to add: Historically, it has been women who suck the cocks of the enemy with the hope of being allowed to survive. Claeyt behaves like a frightened woman eager to fellate his ideological masters for a little false sense of security/approval/acceptance.

The point here is, all news has a specific agenda.
No news is written without bias.
Stop listening to the news, sit back and enjoy the ride of life.

Best post in this thread.

[Claeyt]

You're thinking of an opinion piece they ran by someone about that time if I remember right. I'll look for it, but this is the main article they had on [Sonny Perdue].

I look forward to seeing it.

Nope, couldn't find anything from the Washington Post. I did look up their history of the piece and they didn't change or edit anything from it's original posting so either you're lying or imagining it.

This is a local police story. This article had almost zero to do with anything nationally except trying to show an increase in gun seizures in DC. They quoted DCPD's list. DCPD's list included the airgun as a gun. Why is this a thing even? Where are you getting that this is somehow a thing? What right wing nonsense site/mouthpiece are you getting this from?

What matter if it's national news or if you think it's a 'thing'? I'm just pointing out an example of bad journalism in support of why I'm now skeptical of all MSM news articles.

If all you believe is non-main stream media sources without sources, research or actual reporting then you're nuts and denying reality. Some media has bias (just look at FOX) and the response is to read all of it. The Washington Post and NYT are not FOX, and if you think they are, then you've swallowed the Kool aid and fell into Trump's hole-of-ignorance. Have fun down there trusting nothing and no one.

Here's the Joe Rogin opinion piece:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/jos ... 2e897fdcf7

It WAS the largest firing/resignation of top State department aides ever.

Here's a a non-opinion piece about it:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ns/514550/

So, it's okay for Joe Rogin to print a fusillade of lies and claim them truth so long as it's labeled 'opinion'. Doesn't make him any less of a liar. There's nothing in the body of the article to indicate that any of it is opinion, it's all stated as if fact.

The Atlantic does print a much more respectable article, but notice how that article also does not fall so far in with the 'chaos in the WH' narrative that is being shoved down our throats and which you have entirely bought into (though they do quite Rogin's opinion piece as if it were real news, notice that?). Here's a quote:

The resignations are not, primarily, a political story. They will further the impression among Trump’s critics that his administration is a chaotic mess staffed, when it’s staffed at all, by greenhorn newcomers. But the mass of voters don’t tend to get all that excited about internal managers at the State Department, especially since Trump and other Republicans have spent years railing against bureaucrats, and particularly bureaucrats who served under Hillary Clinton. If you think Foggy Bottom has been a disastrous mess, then house-cleaning might be a good thing. Kennedy’s name is not a household one, but he did come in for harsh criticism in the House report on the September 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, arguably coming in for worse censure than Clinton herself.

But someone has to run the State Department, to keep the gears of diplomacy turning, and Rogin reports that the latest resignations are part of a “mass exodus of senior foreign service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.” In early January, The New York Times reported that Trump’s team would not grant grace periods to any outgoing ambassadors, a break with tradition. A source dismissed concerns about their departures to Fox News, pointing out that many ambassadors are political appointees whose major qualification for their jobs was raising lots of money for Barack Obama: “The number twos are career foreign service officers and more than capable of stepping into the roles.”

Absolutely nothing points to Rogin lying anywhere in either article. That is a lie. THIS WAS THE LARGEST RESIGNATION AND FIRING OF STATE DEPARTMENT SENIOR ADMINISTRATORS AT ONE TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. What don't you get about that being absolutely true. They haven't changed anything about the article or recanted anything that I can find. Where are you getting that this wasn't the largest? Why can't you accept that this was different than the general change over of the State Department of other administrations?

As for 'Opinion' being in the body of the article it's right ***** there at the top of the article ffs. It says "Opinion" right next to his ***** name.

You keep saying they are "rewriting" these articles but that's not true. If they edit it, they say so on the bottom of the article. I think you're misunderstanding how this works.

Maybe you don't know what an Opinion section is. Maybe you're not understanding their 'Opinion' section versus their main section. Most of these articles you're posting are clearly labeled 'Opinion' section. Their opinion pieces ARE part of the Washington Post but they're not full news articles. They are the opinion and political of the writer. They always have republican and conservative opinion writers on them as well. David Brooks, George Will, Charles Krauthammer and Joe Scarborough are all conservative opinion writers either on staff or contributing writers to the Washington Post.

All they often say is that they made a change. They don't always say what they changed. It can be significant portions of the article.

I am well aware of the difference between opinion and fact and how such things should be reported, and again, these supposed opinion pieces are being reported as if they are real news and are being quoted by other journalists as 'reports', not 'editorials'. Does that make it okay, if a lie is first labeled an opinion and then quoted in a 'serious' news article that is supposed to be unbiased fact? Is it okay for a journalist to tweet a lie as if it is true, wait an hour or so while it gets retweeted 50,000 times, then tweet an "oops, my mistake" that they know will get retweeted like 400 times because the truth isn't as fun to spread so that the lie becomes established in people's minds as truth? Do you really not know this is happening?

Opinion IS news as translated by the writer or speaker. Take these 2 articles. One (The Atlantic) gives the facts and doesn't highlight the failure of the Trump administration, the other (Rogin's opinion piece) takes those facts and highlights his opinion of how he thinks this is a massive mistake by the Trump administration (as did every single Secretary of State going back to Reagan). Opinion is news. It's based on sourced material, it's based on facts. They won't let him print it if it's not. Maybe you don't understand but this is factual news.

There are absolutely no lies in either article. This is 'FakNoo' *****. This WAS the largest resignation/firing of State Department senior administrators ever and does not resemble the general change over of administration during other administrations. Rogin's opinion piece absolutely uses unbiased fact to say this is a mistake as FOX might say this a radical new way for Trump to put his mark on the State Department. What you're arguing against is his opinion (and the opinion of the last 5 Sec's of State). The opinion of Rogin (who writes on Foreign Policy) and the last 5 Sec's of State IS NEWS and IS FACT. The FACTS of their opinion on the subject is news as they were the main drivers of where we are now as a country in regards to our Foreign policy. As an example: The NYT's can now report that "The last 5 Sec's of State along with multiple foreign policy experts and foreign policy writers believe Trump's dismissal of so many senior aides is a bad idea." This is news and this is a fact that Rogin, foreign policy experts and 5 Sec's of State disagree with Trump. You're trying to deny intellectualism if you're trying to deny learned opinion from specialists and experts (Sec's of states and Foreign Policy experts) on the subject of this mass exodus and that is a sign of Fascism to delegitimize learned knowledge by those who have studied it.

If every single national newspaper, cable news channel and news magazine is reporting on the chaos within the Trump administration then there is chaos within the administration. Why are you denying this? Even Kelly is saying in open testimony he was not part of the roll out and that it was handled badly.

Again, yes, the damn rollout was handled badly, but that does not constitute chaos, okay? I know the established media narrative is 'chaos' but that still doesn't make it true. You know how much they hate Trump and that Trump makes no secret of his dislike of their bad practices and their extreme bias. Yes, it is entirely possible for the vast majority of the largest media outlets to all be telling the same lies at once.

It was Chaos at the airports and still is. 60,000 were affected by it on the first day. 1,200 UK citizens have had to change or cancel their travel plans. 5 Canadians have been denied entry into the U.S. for business due to their migration from other countries. This was Chaos.

Again... If you perceive bias and lies coming from all legitimate sources, the problem isn't them, it's you.

You sound like a cultist denying that the group is a cult because multiple news outlets are calling you a cult and giving examples of cult like behavior in your group.

If you disagree with what every legitimate news source in the country is saying about Trump and think they are "lying" to the American people, the problem isn't with them, it's with you. Where are you getting your news from? Are you embarrassed to tell us? You've quoted at least 3 Hannity "FakNoo" attacks on the WaPost so far here. If you're not getting them from him you must be getting them second hand from somewhere.

The problem here is, how legitimate are most of them anymore?

ALL OF THEM... all of them are legitimate. Just because YOU and TRUMP don't think they are legitimate because they disagree with you or point out your mistakes doesn't delegitimize them.

You point out that I disagree with them, but it shouldn't be a question of agreement or disagreement. It should be them reporting the unbiased facts so as to inform the public so that the public may make their own judgements and opinions. Agreement with what the media says shouldn't come into it.

The public can make up their own minds and be knowledgeable or ignorant of whatever topic based on how much or what sources they read/watch/listen to. It is also for people like me to say stuff like "If you only watch Hannity and Rush then you are ignorant of the facts of this nation." It is absolutely legitimate to question the WaPo and compare it to other sources. It is not okay to say they "lied" without proof of them lying just because you disagree with an opinion piece by one of their contributors.

What you should have said to sound intelligent was "Just look at Rogin's article if you want to see the WaPo's bias. He exaggerated the resignation of the State Department senior aides just because it was bigger than past administrations even though Trump's view of the world's politics is so different that big changes in State could be seen coming a mile away."

That's what you should have said. This comment takes into account the FACT of the size of the change and the FACT that it is an opinion piece, instead you led off with "lies" and "FakNoo" *****.

I haven't quoted Hannity at all as I don't watch his show. Perhaps he's just reporting the same things I've found myself online? I'm not sure why it's important where I get my news, but okay... I do a lot of Google searches when I hear about a subject to see what I can find out and I do read articles by papers like the WP and NYT and Atlantic and others trying to sift the facts from the ****. I often listen to the Ben Shaprio podcast on Daily Wire (he's conservative) and the Sargon of Akkad podcast (British, but talks a lot of American politics too, libertarian/liberal). I don't always agree with either of them, but that's good, and it does give me some idea of what's happening in the world so I have a starting point of where to look. I also skim the newsfeed on Daily Wire and look at articles that seem interesting and I do my best to confirm what is in them before believing it. It's a lot more work than I should have to do to get the news too.

Well good. Daily Wire is conservative and spits out opinionated factual based rehash of actual news just like Huffington Post does for the left but I read it sometimes. I'm guessing you're getting the Hannity 'FakNoo' stuff from the bloggers and podcasts which he probably listens to to give his show legitimacy.

Conservative bloggers and radio dipwads share more ***** than "2 girls, 1 cup."

No legitimate news source is talking about assassination. That is a lie.

No, CNN has been consistently doing their best to make Trump look like a dangerous madman and Hitler wannabe who is a danger to America. They claim he supports Neo-Nazis and the KKK. They've portrayed him as a horrible racist. They want people to think Trump is a puppet of Russia, that he'll start a nuclear war in a tiff, that the entire government is in chaos, and that he is just outright evil. Others have been doing it too, but CNN is the worst. And then there's that Irish magazine that published an article asking outright if assassinating Trump might be the best thing to do.

He does have massive support from alt-right nazi's and the KKK. Jeff Sessions is/was a racist and was denied a federal courtship for his past racism including calling black lawyers 'Boy' and arresting and suing black voting rights workers in Alabama. Trump's business when he was VP was twice sued and lost to the federal government for refusing to rent to black people. These are extremely racist things.

Both Trump's and Sessions's fathers were members of the KKK.

If they are reporting that he is a dangerous madman and Hitler it's because he's the closest we've come to a fascist leader in the country EVER and he seems extremely mentally unbalanced sometimes when he Tweets and gets in these bizarre fights with people about crowd size and other nonsense about himself. The crowds were smaller and only an insane person would argue that they weren't.

The reason he's the most fascist ever is because he's using authoritarian language and tactics to gain control of the government. Anti-democractic, bullying, anti-intellectual, denying observable facts. These are all signs of facism as defined by Orwell, Arendt and Churchill.

Personally I believe we are going to face a 'Reichstag' moment within the next year to year and a half, maybe a nuclear attack by terrorists or a 9/11 style attack on some city, and he's going to try and suspend the constitution, or part of the constitution. At that point we'll see how strong our country is in denying the takeover of a fascist government.

The general public DOES NOT APPROVE of what he is doing. That is a lie. Every poll has him underwater. I posted that earlier and you saw it. Why are you unable to believe FACTS that are right in front of your face. Are you that hypnotized by his nonsense that you are no longer capable of rational thought. Do the crowds REALLY look bigger than Obama's to you? If you are unable to discern fact from reality even when it's put right in front of you, then you are delusionally following an authoritarian shuckster just like all those 'good germans' and 'loyal italians' before you. I highly recommend you take a step back and regain your cognitive dissonance (if you ever had it in the first place) and realize that he is not a great leader and not fit for the presidency.

You must have missed the poll politico just did and I linked in "Trump's Policies" that shows the people actually DO like what he's doing.
I... long ago agreed that it is obvious the physical crowd was about average for an inauguration, while Obama's was huge. I only objected to reports that deceptively made the place look like a ghost town.
I notice that you have completely and unquestioningly bought into the narrative of Trump as a nazi, fascist, racist, evil, spawn of Satan. Good job, you're everything the Democratic party and MSM want you to be.

Some... a small amount of the policies have favorable ratings. Even I approve of his manhandling of companies who are exporting jobs and I think the Clinton's killed hard political actions like this for the Democratic party back in the 90's. This should be a Democratic policy to punish companies like this but the Republicans are the one's who've been stopping this for 30 years with Democratic indifference. I'm actually in favor of him building the pipelines as long as it's with American steel. (This is my cognitive dissonance in action: I know that building the pipelines to Canada and N Dakota oil fields will not help global warming which is a huge problem but I'd rather buy my gas from there than from Saudi Arabia. The solution is to increase all other forms of energy while also using U.S. And Canadian oil.)

I do think he is a 'Reichstag' moment away from fascism and that he is supremely unqualified and unfit to be president. I think he has put in place the most unqualified, sycophantic administration of all time and that it is dangerous to our country and constitution. They still can't find anyone to take the job of communications director. They've had 4 people turn them down now according to the NYT.

I also think that he and his administration are lying to us about their contacts with Russia and other far right groups. I think he is as close as we've ever been as a country to the dissolution of the constitution and an authoritarian government and the Republican party's history over the last 20 years led us here. I think that we haven't seen a greater distance between our government at every level and the people of this country since the pro-slavery presidents before the civil war. When 85% want stronger gun laws, 3 million more people voted for the opponent of the president and anti-democracy platforms like voter suppression, gerrymandering and voter roll purges are used to maintain a minority party in power there is something deeeply wrong in America and Trump is nothing more than the white head on the giant boil of the hard right propped up by conservative actions to prevent the voters from voting.

The point here is, all news has a specific agenda.

No news is written without bias.

Stop listening to the news, sit back and enjoy the ride of life.

"All of us show bias when it comes to what information we take in. We typically focus on anything that agrees with the outcome we want."

If all individual news is biased and has an agenda then 'as a whole' taken together news is unbiased and all agendas, thus we must read/watch/witness as much as possible to find the truth or as close to the truth as we can get.

The "ride of life" at this moment is hurting and in some cases killing people. It is denying rights and looming towards fascism. I will not allow that as a citizen of this country.

[Dallane]

Clay le cuck

[eywariorey]

I think that is the largest textwall i have ever seen

[Dallane]

I think that is the largest textwall i have ever seen

He does this in hopes that no one will read it fully and research like meow does. She then ***** on him as usual. It's his only reason to be here

[Claeyt]

So to summarize these 3 things have happened in the last 24 hrs:

1. NSA director Flynn lied to the Obama administration, the VP and Rence Priebus about his talking about ending sanctions with the Russian ambassador and his aides during 2 phone calls and 3 texts on the day before and the day of Obama's sanctions and expulsions of Russian embassy staff over Russia hacking of the DNC and HRC's campaign staff. This was done on December 22nd the day before the Obama administrations actions. This was before Trump was sworn in and before Flynn was appointed as NSA director. He may have received the information about the expulsions and sanctions from Trump himself who would have received them during the daily presidential elect's briefing.

2. Flynn was in contact with Russian intelligence DURING THE CAMPAIGN while he was Donald Trump's national security campaign adviser. This is huge new news.

3. The ongoing intelligence investigation which includes the FBI, NSA and CIA has confirmed parts of the Trump Russia dossier written by the ex-MI-6 agent. They've confirmed some of the contact dates, times and persons involved with possible connections between Russian intelligence and the Trump campaign and between Russian officials and other Russian officials. They haven't said what the contacts involved but they have said they happened.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watc ... 4908739801

All of this comes from 9 intelligence officials who were sources for the WaPo, CNN and the NYT reporting. Huge news.

[TotalyMeow]

Claeyt is a White Male, perhaps heterosexual, and unless I missed a class in high school or something, he will eventually be middle-aged.

Claeyt doesn't understand how he will ultimately be devoured by the SJW's he desperately wishes to emulate.

Head first, like a preying mantis.

You're thinking of an opinion piece.

I look forward to seeing it.

Nope, couldn't find anything

That’s because we’re referring to the same article.

If all you believe is non-main stream media sources without sources, research or actual reporting then you're nuts and denying reality. ... The Washington Post and NYT are not FOX, and if you think they are, then you've swallowed the Kool aid and fell into Trump's hole-of-ignorance.

You’ve gone off the rails here. I was referring to a WP article and how the reporter didn’t do any research at all to confirm anything before posting the article and how this is bad practice. I don’t understand what you’re saying about Kool-aid; are you trying to make an ad-hominem argument?

I’m going to edit for brevity a bit here as you’re repeating yourself a lot. “...” indicates I’ve removed a thing and the original text wall is here.

Absolutely nothing points to Rogin lying anywhere in either article. ... THIS WAS THE LARGEST RESIGNATION AND FIRING OF STATE DEPARTMENT SENIOR ADMINISTRATORS AT ONE TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. What don't you get about that being absolutely true.

That particular statement is quite possibly true, and I don't feel like delving into history to find out so I'll accept it. However, that's not the thing I'm calling a lie. First, the headline, which sets the tone for the whole article: "The State Department’s entire senior administrative team just resigned". Not true in the slightest. See here the org chart of the state department. The four people he then went on to list are Under Secretary for Management, Assistant Secretary Administration, Assistant Secretary Consular Affairs, and Director Foreign Missions. He described this as an "ongoing exodus", a very misleading term for the Assistant Secretary Diplomatic Security retiring and Director Overseas Buildings Operations leaving a week or so earlier. Notice how all together, only a relatively few of the management left, not a "near complete housecleaning of all the senior officials that deal with managing the State Department".

Now, let me just requote that bit from the Atlantic:
"But someone has to run the State Department, to keep the gears of diplomacy turning, and Rogin reports that the latest resignations are part of a “mass exodus of senior foreign service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.”" The Atlantic clearly treated his article as factual and quoted that line as if it was fact. You can call it 'opinion' and say that therefore it doesn't need to be true, but I disagree that it's okay on the basis of the tone of the article which stated everything as it if was fact rather than ever saying it was only his perception of a mass exodus, and on the basis that the Atlantic quoted it as if it was an honest 'report'. The little 'opinion' tag by his name means little when it's being used like this.

What you should have said to sound intelligent was "Just look at Rogin's article if you want to see the WaPo's bias. He exaggerated the resignation of the State Department senior aides just because it was bigger than past administrations

Except that it was more than just 'exaggeration'. At what point does exaggeration become a lie? When it becomes misleading, and he was certainly misleading. Reading that article's headline evokes scenes of long stretches of vacant offices with a lonely tumbleweed rolling through, not the resignation of a mere 6 people out of dozens.

... Opinion is news. It's based on sourced material, it's based on facts. They won't let him print it if it's not. Maybe you don't understand but this is factual news. ... The opinion of Rogin ... IS NEWS and IS FACT. The FACTS of their opinion on the subject is news

Sorry, but opinion is not fact. Facts have objective content and are well-supported by available evidence. Opinions are subjective or not well-supported by available evidence. That headline and the exodus claim can be easily disproven and are there to create outrage and/or panic in people, especially those who only read the headline and maybe the first paragraph or two where all his most inflammatory statements are.

I disagree that opinion is news. News is defined as noteworthy information about new things or current events and some reporter's opinion is just an opinion.

It was Chaos at the airports and still is. 60,000 were affected by it on the first day. 1,200 UK citizens have had to change or cancel their travel plans. 5 Canadians have been denied entry into the U.S. for business due to their migration from other countries. This was Chaos.

Are you talking about the egregious behavior by protestors who thought the best reaction to the EO was to purposely cause trouble at airports and try to prevent people from traveling? That is not something you can blame on either Trump or the EO itself.

The problem here is, how legitimate are most of them anymore?

ALL OF THEM... all of them are legitimate. Just because YOU and TRUMP don't think they are legitimate because they disagree with you or point out your mistakes doesn't delegitimize them.

Well... that's where we disagree, I guess. Legitimacy of the news to me means they can be trusted to publish the truth. Ideally the whole, unbiased truth. They've delegitimized themselves through lies and bias. I'm not even in the minority of thinking this, either, a great many people are trusting the entirety of the press less and less.

Hannity 'FakNoo' stuff

Conservative bloggers and radio dipwads share more ***** than "2 girls, 1 cup."

... The way you categorize and label stuff. I'm not surprised you're so closed minded.

Both Trump's and Sessions's fathers were members of the KKK.

The sins of the father shall not be visited on the sons. :/ As for Trump's sins, I don't like them, I agree that the bad things he does are bad and we should keep telling him when he's doing good things and when he's doing bad so he can be shaped by public opinion into doing the right thing.

The reason he's the most fascist ever is because he's using authoritarian language and tactics to gain control of the government. Anti-democractic, bullying, anti-intellectual, denying observable facts. These are all signs of facism as defined by Orwell, Arendt and Churchill.

No, he HAS control of the executive branch of the government. He doesn't need to gain it. I haven't seen a lot of evidence of fascist bullying from Trump. Maybe when he does things like manhandling those companies, that was wrong and not something the president should be doing. Some have said it was a good thing because he promised he would before he was elected and then followed through... but that's a thin excuse in my opinion. I have noticed a lot of fascism in the so-called antifa people, but that's a different subject.

Even I approve of his manhandling of companies who are exporting jobs

*sigh*

This should be a Democratic policy to punish companies like this

It should not be a governmental policy of any kind to punish companies like this. It's wrong for Trump to do it and it's wrong for anyone to do it. They left for a reason. Find the reason and fix the problem so they'll WANT to come back. Stripping away some of our ridiculous regulations would be a good start, I could do pages and pages on stupid business regulations of the US. Simplifying the tax code is another thing. And free trade, overall a good thing, I do hope Trump doesn't add all the tariffing he said he would.

I'm actually in favor of him building the pipelines as long as it's with American steel. (This is my cognitive dissonance in action: I know that building the pipelines to Canada and N Dakota oil fields will not help global warming which is a huge problem but I'd rather buy my gas from there than from Saudi Arabia. The solution is to increase all other forms of energy while also using U.S. And Canadian oil.)

Do you realize that lack of a pipeline is what is bad for the environment? Without them, the oil has to be transported by train, which is much more subject to spills and requires a lot more burning of fuel. Not having a pipeline doesn't actually reduce the usage of oil.

he is a 'Reichstag' moment away from fascism

Reichstag? Is this another of your buzzwords like using 'apartheid' when you meant 'separatist'?

I think he is as close as we've ever been as a country to the dissolution of the constitution and an authoritarian government

Yeah, Obama did a lot to push the boundaries of Executive power, making it that much easier for Trump to do the same. However, luckily, the constitution is a robust document and designed to stand up to such things. I think we will be fine.

[eywariorey]

nama jeff