-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Wow, that was some time gap. :)
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chuck Naill
Wow, that was some time gap. :)
???
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
welch
U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died as a result of injuries sustained in the riot, was hurt in a separate incident.
Will you be posting a retraction?
https://www.cbs17.com/news/national-...examiner-says/
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kazoolaw
Would he have died the next day had the capital not been attacked by Trump's supporters? Of course, we may never know, but with that condition, why was he working there? The ME's verdict raises more questions than it answers.
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Well I mean it's owned by Bezos and, if anything, he knows how to sell a product. WaPo just prints whatever it's readers wants to listen to, it's unapologetically left-leaning and constantly pushes out Op ed pieces for libs to latch onto.
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Media around the world is on to Fauci's inconsistencies, pointed out repeatedly by Sen Rand Paul, and evidenced in over 2k emails.
The WashPost? "Trump and his allies try to rewrite, distort history of pandemic while casting Fauci as public enemy No. 1"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...67c_story.html
Rand Paul has been whipping Fauci's ass on a weekly basis... but yeah, just another "conspiracy theory". They're trying to pin it on Fauci...
Everything is "Russian Disinformation" or "Conspiracy Theory". How long do you think libs can keep this up before the last threads of their credibility are shredded.
Biden Laptop
Burisma
The "Big Guy" did attend the meetings.
Hunter gun in trashcan (how did he even buy it legally)
Wuhan "lab lead" was a conspiracy (not).
Ostracized and silenced doctors who contradicted whatever Fauci was spewing at the time.
Social media manipulating info on an Orwellian scale.
The WashPost is a joke. Fauci pinned it on Fauci.
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Oops, just kidding about Trump ordering tear gas for a photo op:
https://www.doioig.gov/reports/revie...lafayette-park
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Wow. The QAnon boys are rambling today. Will Trump be reinstated in August? Or was he re-inaugurated in March?
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
welch
Wow. The QAnon boys are rambling today. Will Trump be reinstated in August? Or was he re-inaugurated in March?
W-
You need to start hanging with a different group of friends.
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HitBoi
•••WaPo just prints whatever it's readers wants to listen to,
That is not true.
Quote:
it's unapologetically left-leaning
middle-liberal, yep. Unapologetic? Duh, of course. No serious news paper apologizes for is position.
Quote:
and constantly pushes out Op ed pieces for libs to latch onto.
some, yup.
Your post is a common description in the guise of a smear.
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
So here is the front page of today's Washington Post. Plenty of news, plus an investigation into what used to be the Republican Party but now has become, I say, a Trump cult. I say it because the only policy that "Republicans" now have appears to be loyalty to Trump and, especially, a religious belief that he won the 2020 election/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/?nid
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
As far as lying, Trump is a much greater source of crap, rubbish, mouthfarts, and general racist filth than the Washington Post.
By the way, recent disclosures of Russian documents show that Trump was nothing more than Putin's pet pig.
"The report – “No 32-04 \ vd” – is classified as secret. It says Trump is the “most promising candidate” from the Kremlin’s point of view. The word in Russian is perspektivny. There is a brief psychological assessment of Trump, who is described as an “impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex”.
There is also apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on the future president, collected – the document says – from Trump’s earlier 'non-official visits to Russian Federation territory'. "
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...in-white-house
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chip
As far as lying, Trump is a much greater source of crap, rubbish, mouthfarts, and general racist filth than the Washington Post.
By the way, recent disclosures of Russian documents show that Trump was nothing more than Putin's pet pig.
"The report – “No 32-04 \ vd” – is classified as secret. It says Trump is the “most promising candidate” from the Kremlin’s point of view. The word in Russian is
perspektivny. There is a brief psychological assessment of Trump, who is described as an “impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex”.
There is also apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses
kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on the future president, collected – the document says – from Trump’s earlier 'non-official visits to Russian Federation territory'. "
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...in-white-house
this link doesn't go anywhere
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
You want to talk about Russians? Really? Did more prostitutes supposedly pee on him again? Spymaster Christopher Steele got a friend with a pen and a phone?
I'm a retired Army officer. I served on the USAREUR (Army Europe) staff. I'm very familiar with intel on Putin and Russia. I'm very familiar with war on the European continent. I'm very familiar with the current threat assessment. I don't need The Guardian to relay an intel assessment (if it's even accurate and not more RussiaRussiaRussia).
Trump was not a promising candidate from the Russian point of view. Trump has many character flaws. I'm not fond of him. I'm not surprised they characterized him that way. Their assessment of course has little more validity than any other pop psychologist informally diagnosing Trump without having ever met him, but we all do "profiles" on various leaders... I agreed with a great deal of his policies. I laughed at how so many people lost their minds over him (and they're still posting here!). The Partisan always sees the non-partisan as "must be for the other guy" - as we see clearly from Chuck, Tsherbs and others.
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Trump was not a promising candidate from the Russian point of view...
Yes, he was.
Exactly because of these weaknesses (we don't need this report to tell us this stuff). That's the whole point. His victory was preferable to that of Hilary Clinton, who does not have the same kind of character and behavioral weaknesses. There were only two choices in 2016: Trump and Clinton. We all know who the Russian disinformation and meddling campaign favored. This has been testified to many times over.
Trump was their preference because of his weaker and more vulnerable character.
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TSherbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Trump was not a promising candidate from the Russian point of view...
Yes, he was.
Exactly because of these weaknesses (we don't need this report to tell us this stuff). That's the whole point. His victory was preferable to that of Hilary Clinton, who does not have the same kind of character and behavioral weaknesses. There were only two choices in 2016: Trump and Clinton.
We all know who the Russian disinformation and meddling campaign favored. This has been testified to many times over.
Trump was their preference because of his weaker and more vulnerable character.
Yes, it has. Clapper, Brennan, Comey testified to congress that they had no evidence. That the Steele Dossier was not validated. Who paid for that again? Who stood to benefit? Hillary. Your argument flies in the face of the facts, because you can only repeat the narrative. 3 years, 30 million dollars and Mueller comes up with nothing. The guy you claim is so corrupt, but they got nothing. It's a conspiracy theory, clearly (and expensively) proven.
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Dufus, I'm not talking about "collusion" crap with Trump or anyone else.
I'm talking about the Russian disinformation campaign. Stop changing the topic. You always do this. There was repeated testimony, from several agencies, that the Russians engaged US social media in a far-reaching campaign to spread misinformation and whip up anxiety and anger and mistrust. This campaign, furthermore, tilted in favor of Trump.
This is not the same as collusion, which I have no interest in discussing and is not relevant to what I am saying.
You said that the Russians did not see Trump as a preferred candidate. I am claiming the opposite, and giving the reasons why.
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House.
Exclusive: Documents suggest Russia launched secret multi-agency effort to interfere in US democracy
Luke Harding, Julian Borger and Dan Sabbagh
The Guardian, Thu 15 Jul 2021 06.00 EDT
Vladimir Putin personally authorised a secret spy agency operation to support a “mentally unstable” Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election during a closed session of Russia’s national security council, according to what are assessed to be leaked Kremlin documents.
The key meeting took place on 22 January 2016, the papers suggest, with the Russian president, his spy chiefs and senior ministers all present.
They agreed a Trump White House would help secure Moscow’s strategic objectives, among them “social turmoil” in the US and a weakening of the American president’s negotiating position.
Russia’s three spy agencies were ordered to find practical ways to support Trump, in a decree appearing to bear Putin’s signature.
By this point Trump was the frontrunner in the Republican party’s nomination race. A report prepared by Putin’s expert department recommended Moscow use “all possible force” to ensure a Trump victory.
Western intelligence agencies are understood to have been aware of the documents for some months and to have carefully examined them. The papers, seen by the Guardian, seem to represent a serious and highly unusual leak from within the Kremlin.
The Guardian has shown the documents to independent experts who say they appear to be genuine. Incidental details come across as accurate. The overall tone and thrust is said to be consistent with Kremlin security thinking.
The Kremlin responded dismissively. Putin’s spokesman Dmitri Peskov said the idea that Russian leaders had met and agreed to support Trump in at the meeting in early 2016 was “a great pulp fiction” when contacted by the Guardian on Thursday morning.
The report – “No 32-04 \ vd” – is classified as secret. It says Trump is the “most promising candidate” from the Kremlin’s point of view. The word in Russian is perspektivny.
There is a brief psychological assessment of Trump, who is described as an “impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex”.
There is also apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on the future president, collected – the document says – from Trump’s earlier “non-official visits to Russian Federation territory”.
The paper refers to “certain events” that happened during Trump’s trips to Moscow. Security council members are invited to find details in appendix five, at paragraph five, the document states. It is unclear what the appendix contains.
“It is acutely necessary to use all possible force to facilitate his [Trump’s] election to the post of US president,” the paper says.
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Thanks for posting the article. I couldn't find it, for some reason.
-
Re: With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TSherbs
Dufus, I'm not talking about "collusion" crap with Trump or anyone else.
I'm talking about the Russian disinformation campaign. Stop changing the topic. You always do this. There was repeated testimony, from several agencies, that the Russians engaged US social media in a far-reaching campaign to spread misinformation and whip up anxiety and anger and mistrust. This campaign, furthermore, tilted in favor of Trump.
This is not the same as collusion, which I have no interest in discussing and is not relevant to what I am saying.
You said that the Russians did not see Trump as a preferred candidate. I am claiming the opposite, and giving the reasons why.
Wow, those goalposts moved so far I can't even see them anymore.
So now Trump "colluding" with Russia is not the topic. How convenient. It's just whether or not the Russian government considered which President would be in their best interest? They had an internal intel report with an opinion? Check this out doofus, every modern country on the planet does that.
Who gave money to the Clintons for uranium while Clinton was the SecState? Since you guys are so fond of the NYT, here you go. NYT: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Who gave money to Hunter Biden (with 10% going to the "big guy")? Wasn't that the Mayor of Moscow or something? I know it's hard to be sure when your news sources won't report on it, and have now been clearly shown to have squelched that story (like the laptop story) during the campaign.
But the bottom line is that you're a fucking school teacher. While teaching children is a noble endeavor, it's hardly a background full of experience in international competition. How many times per day do you go down to the SCIF and log on to JCIDS to read the TS daily brief? I suspect never, and I'd be completely surprised if you knew what any of those acronyms and abbreviations are without a google search.
You're trying to tell me things you have no firsthand experience with, yet I do. You're wrong, but that's all I can say about that.
--edit--
Who was against Nordstream2? Who was ok with it? Who killed international gas prices? What former communist country gets a great deal of its income selling gas to Western Europe? Would they stand to benefit if the price of the product they sell was more expensive? Would they stand to benefit if the U.S. didn't block a pipeline to Germany, and didn't consider selling U.S. petroleum (primarily natural gas) to Europe?
Now why in the world would Putin prefer Trump to Hillary or Biden?
