Russiagate lies are being exposed — and everybody is watching

[YDB95]

I've worked as a reporter and for an organization that keeps an eye n the media.

Even if that is true, I can just imagine the sort of organization you would work for, and your idea of bias.

 

[SkyBubble]

I don't need to prove it. I've worked for numerous publications from Newsmax when it was still a fledgling website to The Imaginative Conservative to various small publications you probably never heard of like The Economic Monitor, the New York Guardian (may it rest in peace), the Washington Inquirer, and others. I was published in the New York City Tribune.

And I worked for Accuracy in Media, among other places.

 

[YDB95]

I don't need to prove it. I've worked for numerous publications from Newsmax when it was still a fledgling website to The Imaginative Conservative to various small publications you probably never heard of like The Economic Monitor, the New York Guardian (may it rest in peace), the Washington Inquirer, and others. I was published in the New York City Tribune.

And I worked for Accuracy in Media, among other places.

You "don't need to prove it," but you just did prove it. Newsmax, Accuracy in Media...you know all about biased and dishonest, all right!!

 

[ll74]

I don't need to prove it. I've worked for numerous publications from Newsmax when it was still a fledgling website to The Imaginative Conservative to various small publications you probably never heard of like The Economic Monitor, the New York Guardian (may it rest in peace), the Washington Inquirer, and others. I was published in the New York City Tribune.

And I worked for Accuracy in Media, among other places.

No you haven't.

 

[AlexBailey]

IOW, honest publications that report facts your cult doesn't like.

Oh. You’re into facts?

Then please tell us the truth about who paid Paul Manafort while he was Trump’s campaign manager.

Or at least provide a link to a story from a respectable news source about it.

 

[Rightguide]

The Republican led Senate subcommittee determined that Trump’s campaign manager was a Russian asset.

That's BS.

 

[Hel_Books]

According to Gabbard’s office, ABC, CBS and NBC spent a total of 2,284 minutes covering Russiagate, yet they have devoted only 2 minutes and 17 seconds on the disclosures of the last couple of weeks. Even when they mention the story, it’s to try to debunk it.

It could be that Donald Trump's behaviour as Vladimir Putin's bitch during the negotiations over Putin's invasion of Ukraine might lead people to be suspicious about the connection between the two autocrats!

 

[briancamdudetenger2018]

imagine if someone says i am not a crook

 

[SkyBubble]

You "don't need to prove it," but you just did prove it. Newsmax, Accuracy in Media...you know all about biased and dishonest, all right!!

Much less bias than any of your sources. I've been a reporter for years, worked for media watchdogs, and been an observer most of my life. Back when I was a kid, they were merely biased. Now they're worse.

 

[SkyBubble]

It could be that Donald Trump's behaviour as Vladimir Putin's bitch during the negotiations over Putin's invasion of Ukraine might lead people to be suspicious about the connection between the two autocrats!

Still peddling that mythology?

 

[Wilson23]

That's actually you. I've been in the business. I've worked as a reporter and for an organization that keeps an eye n the media. Virtually all of the publications you cite are biased and dishonest.

If it's this or this, you have nothing of any value or credibility at all to say about what is "biased" or "dishonest."

 

[Wilson23]

Still peddling that mythology?

It is no myth that Trump is Putin's bitch.

 

[Wilson23]

I don't need to prove it. I've worked for numerous publications from Newsmax

That does not support your credibility at all, quite the reverse.

And I worked for Accuracy in Media, among other places.

And that is even worse.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
It could be that Donald Trump's behaviour as Vladimir Putin's bitch during the negotiations over Putin's invasion of Ukraine might lead people to be suspicious about the connection between the two autocrats!

Still peddling that mythology?

Read about Trump's recent sniveling attempts to get Ukraine to surrender territory that Putin hasn't even occupied, a surrender that will have Trump claiming he's a "peacemaker" who deserves something other the FIFA "participation award" FIFA bribed him with.

Then tell me you don't think Trump is Putin's bitch. Maybe Putin really does have that pee tape!

 

[ll74]

The Senate report was clear.
Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
The only people who deny this
Are the same people
Who believe Haitians are eating dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio.

 

[SkyBubble]

Read about Trump's recent sniveling attempts to get Ukraine to surrender territory that Putin hasn't even occupied, a surrender that will have Trump claiming he's a "peacemaker" who deserves something other the FIFA "participation award" FIFA bribed him with.

Then tell me you don't think Trump is Putin's bitch. Maybe Putin really does have that pee tape!

I've read about his peacemaking efforts, probably more than you have. This is Trump's peacemaking methodology, the same one he used in the Middle East and elsewhere. Take one side's plan to the other. See what tehy can accept and what they can't. Rinse and repeat.

You may not like his methodology, but it's been working in a number of places. Unfortunately, I think the Russia-Ukraine situation may be too intractable for it to work.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
Read about Trump's recent sniveling attempts to get Ukraine to surrender territory that Putin hasn't even occupied, a surrender that will have Trump claiming he's a "peacemaker" who deserves something other the FIFA "participation award" FIFA bribed him with.

Then tell me you don't think Trump is Putin's bitch. Maybe Putin really does have that pee tape!

I've read about his peacemaking efforts, probably more than you have. This is Trump's peacemaking methodology, the same one he used in the Middle East and elsewhere. Take one side's plan to the other. See what tehy can accept and what they can't. Rinse and repeat.

You may not like his methodology, but it's been working in a number of places. Unfortunately, I think the Russia-Ukraine situation may be too intractable for it to work.

Perhaps. Though it hasn't worked for Trump anywhere, so far. Surrender will produce peace, but Trump so far hasn't persuaded the Ukrainians to surrender.

 

[Wilson23]

This is Trump's peacemaking methodology, the same one he used in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Hasn't helped there!

 

[SkyBubble]

Perhaps. Though it hasn't worked for Trump anywhere, so far. Surrender will produce peace, but Trump so far hasn't persuaded the Ukrainians to surrender.

It has, actually. His administration has used this precise method in several regions and stopped hostilities, at least for a while.

 

[YDB95]

Much less bias than any of your sources. I've been a reporter for years, worked for media watchdogs, and been an observer most of my life. Back when I was a kid, they were merely biased. Now they're worse.

It is difficult indeed to imagine a more biased source than the very ones you claim to have worked for. Which does explain a lot about your perspective, and especially your tendency to just insist your opponent is wrong and leave it at that, with no cites or evidence.

I've read about his peacemaking efforts, probably more than you have. This is Trump's peacemaking methodology, the same one he used in the Middle East and elsewhere. Take one side's plan to the other. See what tehy can accept and what they can't. Rinse and repeat.

It's closer to the mark to say Trump picks a side and tries to convince the other side to accept getting screwed. That's why he said he could end the Ukraine war in one day before he even took office: he planned to tell Zelenskyy to let Putin have most of what he wanted.

 

[HisArpy]

It is difficult indeed to imagine a more biased source than the very ones you claim to have worked for. Which does explain a lot about your perspective, and especially your tendency to just insist your opponent is wrong and leave it at that, with no cites or evidence.

Here's the part you don't seem to connect with reality - ANY source is better than your fantasy opinion because it means that there are people out there actually digging through data instead of just making up the lie-of-the-day.

It's closer to the mark to say Trump picks a side and tries to convince the other side to accept getting screwed.

And?

Or do you not know how politics works?

That's why he said he could end the Ukraine war in one day before he even took office: he planned to tell Zelenskyy to let Putin have most of what he wanted.

More of your fabled bullshit. No proof, no data, nothing at all; yet you stick with spouting this crap as if it's real.

 

[SkyBubble]

It is difficult indeed to imagine a more biased source than the very ones you claim to have worked for.

It's quite easy, actually. Most of the mainstream media would qualify. We all have biases.

As Pew Research showed, liberals outnumber conservatives in newsrooms 5-1. And that doesn't even address how those 5-1 liberals vs. conservatives are distributed.

As I said, we all have biases. When the bias tilts so heavily one way, it becomes an institutional bias. That's why the legacy media tilts strongly left. A study showed that reading the New York Times for 18 minutes will get you the same amount of liberal bias as you would get from watching Fox New for a week. And that doesn't even account for the full-out lies of the Times. (I've seen it.)

The rest of the "mainstream" media is similar.

It's closer to the mark to say Trump picks a side and tries to convince the other side to accept getting screwed. That's why he said he could end the Ukraine war in one day before he even took office: he planned to tell Zelenskyy to let Putin have most of what he wanted.

Clear to you, maybe, but not in the real world.

I understand. Your cult is too deeply invested in the "Trump is a Russian operative" narrative to let it be false. That doesn't change the reality that it's false.

 

[YDB95]

It's quite easy, actually. Most of the mainstream media would qualify. We all have biases.

Nice dodge, but we're not talking about whether or not any bias exists. We're talking about degrees of bias. It's no exaggeration to say if Joe Biden walked on water, Newsmax's next headline would be BIDEN CAN'T SWIM. The mainstream media has some bias, but not that much. (Not to mention that, decades of right-wingers' whining notwithstanding, the mainstream media really has what I would call a center-right bias. This is at least in part a matter of overcorrecting against the myth of the 'liberal media', but also simply because they're owned by big media companies that want as little regulation as possible.)

As Pew Research showed, liberals outnumber conservatives in newsrooms 5-1. And that doesn't even address how those 5-1 liberals vs. conservatives are distributed.

Your second sentence here defeats your first, although you obviously don't see how. In a given newsroom, if the sports writer and the advice columnist are liberals and the editor is a conservative, that's a 2-1 liberal advantage, but the editorial page won't reflect that at all.

As I said, we all have biases. When the bias tilts so heavily one way, it becomes an institutional bias. That's why the legacy media tilts strongly left.

Except that it really doesn't. It just looks that way from your extreme right-wing point of view.

A study showed that reading the New York Times for 18 minutes will get you the same amount of liberal bias as you would get from watching Fox New for a week.

Cite please. (I could also mention the study that showed people who don't follow any news source at all tend to be better-informed than those who watch Fox News.)

I understand. Your cult is too deeply invested in the "Trump is a Russian operative" narrative to let it be false. That doesn't change the reality that it's false.

Thank you for proving my point about your "it's true because I said so" approach to everything.

 

[PaxNurgle]

While SkyBubble at times seems like a good honest poster (though I'm not saying I always agree with everything he posts) he nonetheless has one common fault: That being, the inability to distinguish unobjective, factual news from propaganda.

NewsMax is propaganda. It's sources are not fact checked, in fact much of their information is actually later proven to be non-factual. That is because it has an agenda, to promote far right political views and support far right political candidates. When a news source does this, it is not news, it is PROPAGANDA. So him claiming to use this as his source for "news" means he is basing his views on information that is not always credible.

Some people have claimed this about CNN, and even fact-checking sites such as snopes.com. But these sources consist of professional journalists with integrity, whose job is to report the facts as they are, without spinning them. But again, not picking on SkyBubble here, but some people, when the more credible websites debunk the propaganda false-"news" information, they refuse to accept that, and go into blind, sometimes childish denial mode ("snopes, NPR, CNN, etc. are "FAKE NEWS") and the 'Liberal Media." Again, this is intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Wilson23]

If a history book 100 years from now dicusses Russiagate, it might say the Russian-interference theory was never proven beyond doubt; it will not say the Russian-interference theory was exposed as lies.