BDKJMU wrote:You can't have a different opinion about facts.Ibanez wrote:
One guy saw it differently. Interesting. Does his opinion negate someone elses? Is that how it works?
Ok, you're referring to the Lt Col and Morrison. I wasn't clear, I was referring to the articles/headlines:Ibanez wrote:BDKJMU wrote: You can't have a different opinion about facts.
Two people can have different views of facts. It's called bias. Interpretation.
That is literally what Trump does when he speaks.
Not fake news. Its wrong. It's Inaccurate. It's misleading. CNN said early in the morning that they expected corroboration, though I don't recall what their basis for that was.BDKJMU wrote:Ok, you're referring to the Lt Col and Morrison. I wasn't clear, I was referring to the articles/headlines:Ibanez wrote:
Two people can have different views of facts. It's called bias. Interpretation.
That is literally what Trump does when he speaks.
Nat Review and others: Morrison's testimony didn't contradict
CNN/Wa Po/et al: Morrison's testimony contradicted..
Well, one of those 2 headlines is fake news.
Yeah, in other words, its FAKE.Ibanez wrote:Not fake news. Its wrong. It's Inaccurate. It's misleading. CNN said early in the morning that they expected corroboration, though I don't recall what their basis for that was.BDKJMU wrote: Ok, you're referring to the Lt Col and Morrison. I wasn't clear, I was referring to the articles/headlines:
Nat Review and others: Morrison's testimony didn't contradict
CNN/Wa Po/et al: Morrison's testimony contradicted..
Well, one of those 2 headlines is fake news.
Fake news is such a bullshit term.
No..fake is like a forgery. Or a sham. Fake designer jeans. Fake video of Obama slam dunking from the free throw line. Those headlines are real. They're just wrong. Yellow Journalism.BDKJMU wrote:Yeah, in other words, its FAKE.Ibanez wrote: Not fake news. Its wrong. It's Inaccurate. It's misleading. CNN said early in the morning that they expected corroboration, though I don't recall what their basis for that was.
Fake news is such a bullshit term.
IMO inaccurate and misleading are VERY different things. Misleading is an intentional act and therefore "fake". Fake designer jeans are made to look like the real thing on purpose.Ibanez wrote:No..fake is like a forgery. Or a sham. Fake designer jeans. Fake video of Obama slam dunking from the free throw line. Those headlines are real. They're just wrong. Yellow Journalism.BDKJMU wrote: Yeah, in other words, its FAKE.
Before 2016 you would've called them misleading or inaccurate. You're only saying fake b/c you support Trump blindly and are deep within the cult of personality.
Boy, that's splittin' hairs, Mark.Ibanez wrote:No..fake is like a forgery. Or a sham. Fake designer jeans. Fake video of Obama slam dunking from the free throw line. Those headlines are real. They're just wrong. Yellow Journalism.BDKJMU wrote: Yeah, in other words, its FAKE.
Before 2016 you would've called them misleading or inaccurate. You're only saying fake b/c you support Trump blindly and are deep within the cult of personality.
I think deceitful would be a more accurate word but that's too high falutin for the base.AZGrizFan wrote:Boy, that's splittin' hairs, Mark.Ibanez wrote: No..fake is like a forgery. Or a sham. Fake designer jeans. Fake video of Obama slam dunking from the free throw line. Those headlines are real. They're just wrong. Yellow Journalism.
Before 2016 you would've called them misleading or inaccurate. You're only saying fake b/c you support Trump blindly and are deep within the cult of personality.
If they're wrong on purpose (or with an agenda) then it's absolutely fake. Like ABC's video. wrong with an agenda. Fake.
Doesn't roll off the tongue like "fake news"...UNI88 wrote:I think deceitful would be a more accurate word but that's too high falutin for the base.AZGrizFan wrote:
Boy, that's splittin' hairs, Mark.
If they're wrong on purpose (or with an agenda) then it's absolutely fake. Like ABC's video. wrong with an agenda. Fake.
Intentional misleading is FAKE NEWS..Ibanez wrote:No..fake is like a forgery. Or a sham. Fake designer jeans. Fake video of Obama slam dunking from the free throw line. Those headlines are real. They're just wrong. Yellow Journalism.BDKJMU wrote: Yeah, in other words, its FAKE.
Before 2016 you would've called them misleading or inaccurate. You're only saying fake b/c you support Trump blindly and are deep within the cult of personality.
FYPAZGrizFan wrote:The knuckle dragging deplorables don't understand it like they do "fake news"...UNI88 wrote:
I think deceitful would be a more accurate word but that's too high falutin for the base.
I can see your point. I didn't see it that way.89Hen wrote:IMO inaccurate and misleading are VERY different things. Misleading is an intentional act and therefore "fake". Fake designer jeans are made to look like the real thing on purpose.Ibanez wrote: No..fake is like a forgery. Or a sham. Fake designer jeans. Fake video of Obama slam dunking from the free throw line. Those headlines are real. They're just wrong. Yellow Journalism.
Before 2016 you would've called them misleading or inaccurate. You're only saying fake b/c you support Trump blindly and are deep within the cult of personality.
That's the word. Deceitful.UNI88 wrote:I think deceitful would be a more accurate word but that's too high falutin for the base.AZGrizFan wrote:
Boy, that's splittin' hairs, Mark.
If they're wrong on purpose (or with an agenda) then it's absolutely fake. Like ABC's video. wrong with an agenda. Fake.
I'll give him this...fake news is a better sound bite.AZGrizFan wrote:Doesn't roll off the tongue like "fake news"...UNI88 wrote:
I think deceitful would be a more accurate word but that's too high falutin for the base.
Those darn multi-syllable words.UNI88 wrote:I think deceitful would be a more accurate word but that's too high falutin for the base.AZGrizFan wrote:
Boy, that's splittin' hairs, Mark.
If they're wrong on purpose (or with an agenda) then it's absolutely fake. Like ABC's video. wrong with an agenda. Fake.
That is not known to be true at this point. It may turn out to be true. But it really doesn't matter at this point because the basic story told by the complaint has been validated.css75 wrote:Here is your so called whistle blower 33 yo Eric Cieramella(spelling?). He is a Democrat holdover from Obama, Trump should have canned all Obama appointees on day 1. Looks like he has lots of friends.
CNN and the Washington Post are not fake news. The National Review is an opinion organization that openly says it is there to promote a conservative point of view. If you are going to believe one over the other and it becomes a contest between the CNN News Division or the Washington Post or the National Review, you would do well to listen to the CNN News Division or the Washington Post.BDKJMU wrote:Senior NSC aide who actually listened in on the phone call contradicts what the leaker & the Lt Col said:“I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” Morrison said in remarks to Congress.https://www.nationalreview.com/news/lat ... ranscript/Morrison also disputed the account of a conversation that Ambassador Bill Taylor described in his testimony to Congress last week. Taylor recalled Morrison telling him about a separate conversation between U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and one of Zelensky’s top advisers, in which Sondland told the adviser that the military aid was contingent on Zelensky’s willingness to publicly announce a probe into Burisma.
“My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland’s proposal to Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general, not President Zelensky, would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation,” Morrison told lawmakers.
Yet you have fake news CNN, Wa Po, etc with headlines saying the exact opposite, that Morrisons testimony corroborated the other's testimony..
If you want the truth, you would do well to rely on what CNN had to say about the essence of the situation instead of the National Review.While he did deviate from Taylor on some details, Morrison testified that Sondland told him the President would release the aid if the Ukrainian prosecutor general announced an investigation, according to sources.
"I reviewed the statement Ambassador Taylor provided this inquiry on October 22, 2019. I can confirm that the substance of his statement, as it relates to conversations he and I had, is accurate," Morrison said.
If Schiff doesn't allow him to testify during the inquiry then it will be.Ibanez wrote:Has it been confirmed?css75 wrote:
Yep, just speculation.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
BDKJMU wrote:The left couldn't get Trump on the Russian Collusion Delusion. And when they can't get him on Ukraine, they'll try to impeach him on something else. Calling it right now, they'll try to bring up stuff other than Ukraine on this shampeachment farce..
How well did CNN do with Russia collusion? A big fat old zero. Trump was not guilty.JohnStOnge wrote:CNN and the Washington Post are not fake news. The National Review is an opinion organization that openly says it is there to promote a conservative point of view. If you are going to believe one over the other and it becomes a contest between the CNN News Division or the Washington Post or the National Review, you would do well to listen to the CNN News Division or the Washington Post.BDKJMU wrote:Senior NSC aide who actually listened in on the phone call contradicts what the leaker & the Lt Col said:
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/lat ... ranscript/
Yet you have fake news CNN, Wa Po, etc with headlines saying the exact opposite, that Morrisons testimony corroborated the other's testimony..
Here is what CNN had to say about Morrison's testimony on what Taylor said:
If you want the truth, you would do well to rely on what CNN had to say about the essence of the situation instead of the National Review.While he did deviate from Taylor on some details, Morrison testified that Sondland told him the President would release the aid if the Ukrainian prosecutor general announced an investigation, according to sources.
"I reviewed the statement Ambassador Taylor provided this inquiry on October 22, 2019. I can confirm that the substance of his statement, as it relates to conversations he and I had, is accurate," Morrison said.
I tried to warn jelly, but he went off the deep end anyway. I wish I was a salesman and knew where he lived.SeattleGriz wrote:https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/1 ... am-schiff/
Bwahaha. What a farce. I am surprised how many on this board were suckered in. Orange Man Bad.
CNN's reporting on the Mueller investigation was generally accurate. With respect to the Mueller investigation: It did not find sufficient evidence to charge anybody with a crime associated with conspiracy to with the Russian Government with respect to two specific Russian government efforts. It did find evidence that members of the Trump campaign cooperated with Russians. For example: It found that the Trump campaign director shared internal campaign polling data pertaining to key midwestern States with a guy associated with Russian intelligence. But the investigators did not charge, in part, because they did not know how those polling data were used.SeattleGriz wrote:How well did CNN do with Russia collusion? A big fat old zero. Trump was not guilty.JohnStOnge wrote:
CNN and the Washington Post are not fake news. The National Review is an opinion organization that openly says it is there to promote a conservative point of view. If you are going to believe one over the other and it becomes a contest between the CNN News Division or the Washington Post or the National Review, you would do well to listen to the CNN News Division or the Washington Post.
Here is what CNN had to say about Morrison's testimony on what Taylor said:
If you want the truth, you would do well to rely on what CNN had to say about the essence of the situation instead of the National Review.
Most of National Review hates Trump, except three or four contributers. They rate up there with Hotair if you want to get a conservative Trump dislike view.
