John Brennan

#126
#126
General Jack said:
No, not at all. Just cynical to the pervasive sentiment amongst the 33% that any story negative on trump is "fake news."

If it turns out that Brennan was consulted I will retract my previous comment.
Click to expand...
Didn’t the poster you called out for calling it “fake news” say he didn’t know what reporting was accurate? That’s the way I read his post. So why did you claim that’s what he was saying, when in essence, the only one appearing to screech fake news was you by discounting what he says he saw in a Bloomberg article?
 
  • Like
Reactions: T-TownVol and SLICKYINC
#127
#127
General Jack said:
No, not at all. Just cynical to the pervasive sentiment amongst the 33% that any story negative on trump is "fake news."

If it turns out that Brennan was consulted I will retract my previous comment.
Click to expand...

The primary group that has been called "Fake news" has been CNN since they parade around like they're an unbiased news agency. This makes CNN seem very disingenuous. There was a study that showed CNN's coverage was 90% negative for Trump. If they're really unbiased, that number should be closer to 50/50 not 90/10.

Also, MSNBC rarely gets attacked because they at least openly admit to being left-leaning in the same way that Fox is right-leaning. They don't have the "holier than thou" attitude that CNN has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#128
#128
volfanhill said:
Didn’t the poster you called out for calling it “fake news” say he didn’t know what reporting was accurate? That’s the way I read his post. So why did you claim that’s what he was saying, when in essence, the only one appearing to screech fake news was you by discounting what he says he saw in a Bloomberg article?
Click to expand...

I was making an observation from afar, as I just explained.

Do you likewise split hairs on assertions of fake news when they are posed from the 33%?
 
#129
#129
Matt2496 said:
The primary group that has been called "Fake news" has been CNN since they parade around like they're an unbiased news agency. This makes CNN seem very disingenuous. There was a study that showed CNN's coverage was 90% negative for Trump. If they're really unbiased, that number should be closer to 50/50 not 90/10.

Also, MSNBC rarely gets attacked because they at least openly admit to being left-leaning in the same way that Fox is right-leaning. They don't have the "holier than thou" attitude that CNN has.
Click to expand...

So much funny.

Of the things trump says and tweets, how much, as a percentage, would you say are not negative - or at least controversial and/or divisive? You might find a inverse correlation with that and the 90% negative coverage .
 
#130
#130
General Jack said:
I was making an observation from afar, as I just explained.

Do you likewise split hairs on assertions of fake news when they are posed from the 33%?
Click to expand...
No I just like to call people out when they have glaring holes in their argument. Especially when the poster you chided went out of their way to not call it fake news.
 
#131
#131
lawgator1 said:
The information available publicly shows that there was collusion. You may not agree with that, but it is perfecftly reasonable to argue that it does. Just admit that Brennan has not leaked anything and say you defend his credentials being yanked, anyway, for political reasons. It will be a lot easier for you because its the truth.
Click to expand...

If you believe that, do you also believe that there was collusion with the Clinton campaign?
I have no idea if he has leaked anything or not and neither do you. That is the truth. Unlike you I am not invested in the outcome so much that I can't see anthing past my current belief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood and tennvols77
#132
#132
volfanhill said:
No I just like to call people out when they have glaring holes in their argument. Especially when the poster you chided went out of their way to not call it fake news.
Click to expand...

Well, it was a cynical aside rather than an argument, but thanks for playing hall monitor.
 
#133
#133
General Jack said:
So much funny.

Of the things trump says and tweets, how much, as a percentage, would you say are not negative - or at least controversial and/or divisive? You might find a inverse correlation with that and the 90% negative coverage .
Click to expand...

Less than 1%.

What the msm is missing it that he needs for them to act the way they act so he can justify the way he acts. Also a large portion of this country don't understand thee difference in "news" and "opinion" shows. Of coarse it doesn't help that many "opinion" host try to pass them self off as journalist.
 
#134
#134
Sandman 423 said:
If you believe that, do you also believe that there was collusion with the Clinton campaign?
I have no idea if he has leaked anything or not and neither do you. That is the truth. Unlike you I am not invested in the outcome so much that I can't see anthing past my current belief.
Click to expand...

That has always been so murky. I mean, in Trump's case we know the following: 1) the highest ranking officials in the campaign met with a Russian government lawyer to get dirt on HRC; 2) they were there because they were told Russia wanted to help Trump win; 3) Trump alluded to it in public statements. There is evidence to suggest that the campaign was aware of the contents of the disclosures of stolen emails in advance, though we do not know how far in advance.

That alone is collusion. Now, if you add to that the seeming deference being paid to Putin and Russia by Trump, plus his long running seeming paranoia and panic at it being looked into, I think that tends to support the inference, strongly at that, that there is even more to it than we currently know.
 
#135
#135
Sandman 423 said:
Less than 1%.

What the msm is missing it that he needs for them to act the way they act so he can justify the way he acts. Also a large portion of this country don't understand thee difference in "news" and "opinion" shows. Of coarse it doesn't help that many "opinion" host try to pass them self off as journalist.
Click to expand...

I agree with the highlighted. The news entertainment business has been very bad for civility in politics, extremely polarizing on both sides.
 
#136
#136
lawgator1 said:
That has always been so murky. I mean, in Trump's case we know the following: 1) the highest ranking officials in the campaign met with a Russian government lawyer to get dirt on HRC; 2) they were there because they were told Russia wanted to help Trump win; 3) Trump alluded to it in public statements. There is evidence to suggest that the campaign was aware of the contents of the disclosures of stolen emails in advance, though we do not know how far in advance.

That alone is collusion. Now, if you add to that the seeming deference being paid to Putin and Russia by Trump, plus his long running seeming paranoia and panic at it being looked into, I think that tends to support the inference, strongly at that, that there is even more to it than we currently know.
Click to expand...

What about the Clinton campaign? Do you believe the same about them?
 
#139
#139
Sandman 423 said:
What about the Clinton campaign? Do you believe the same about them?
Click to expand...


You missed my comment. What is the evidence of HRC collusion? (Not right wing loon speculation, or nutball Fox commentators trying to make ratings for the week, must be a real source and verified info)
 
#141
#141
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#145
#145
NorthDallas40 said:
So you agree the whole Trump Russia collusion thing is a hoax. Good glad we agree.
Click to expand...

Can't talk now, late for my "adoption meeting" with the Russian dignitaries.

I
suspicious-cat-gif.gif
 
#146
#146
lawgator1 said:
You missed my comment. What is the evidence of HRC collusion? (Not right wing loon speculation, or nutball Fox commentators trying to make ratings for the week, must be a real source and verified info)
Click to expand...
Clinton campaign funded fusion GPS - Fusion GPS worked with Russian nationals to manufacture the dossier used for the FISA warrant. Compared to a 30 minute public meeting between Trump and a Russian, there's way more concrete evidence pointing to HRC collusion. If one could set aside their bias.
 
#147
#147
lawgator1 said:
The information available publicly shows that there was collusion. You may not agree with that, but it is perfecftly reasonable to argue that it does. Just admit that Brennan has not leaked anything and say you defend his credentials being yanked, anyway, for political reasons. It will be a lot easier for you because its the truth.





If he had done that, you might have a point. He did not. He picked one guy, in particular, and is threatening a list of specific people, all of whom have dared speak out against him. That is the ONLY thing they have in common.

You know, you ought to be thanking them for their service and for ringing the alarm bell, both about Russian interference having already occurred and the potential for it to occur again. That it is is more important to defend this one President -- no matter what he did -- at the expense of the truth about the risks posed then and in the future, shows just how short-sighted, selfish, immature, and unsophisticated Trump supporters can be.

It is decidely un-American and quite shameful.
Click to expand...
Lulz. You fall all over yourself defending an email server in the house of a high ranking public official. Can't get more shameful than cavalier commsec.
 
#148
#148
lawgator1 said:
You missed my comment. What is the evidence of HRC collusion? (Not right wing loon speculation, or nutball Fox commentators trying to make ratings for the week, must be a real source and verified info)
Click to expand...

So you don't believe that the colluded with a foreign government in the election. fair enough.

I think they both did but that is just my opinion.
 
#150
#150
Sandman 423 said:
What about the Clinton campaign? Do you believe the same about them?
Click to expand...


You missed my comment. What is the evidence of HRC collusion? (Not right wing loon speculation, or nutball Fox commentators trying to make ratings for the week, must be a real source and verified info)
red butler said:
Clinton campaign funded fusion GPS - Fusion GPS worked with Russian nationals to manufacture the dossier used for the FISA warrant. Compared to a 30 minute public meeting between Trump and a Russian, there's way more concrete evidence pointing to HRC collusion. If one could set aside their bias.
Click to expand...


Even the Fox people are starting to see through the oversell of the dossier as the sourse of the warrants. That narrative is tired, and false.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top