Do you know, or are you “just asking questions”?
- Who knows what is? Some cockamamie piece of paper Rachel found jammed in the office’s printer? One thing it certainly is NOT is “legitimate polling data”.
- Oh, the humanity. Are we in agreement here that Rachel Maddow is a liar?
- It’s hard to spot the difference
Do you know the answer or you’re just questioning the question?
- so it is established that you have no fucking idea what is on that paper.
- So it is established that you have no fucking idea what the difference between “wrong” and “lie” is.
- So it is established that you have no fucking couth.
So…I guess we can assume until shown otherwise that you are just "JAQ"ing.
- so it is established that you have no fucking idea why Rachel tried to convince her gullible audience that a random piece of paper she most likely picked in the office’s bathroom is “legitimate polling data”
- So it is established that you have no fucking idea what reading comprehension is.
- So it is established that you have no fucking idea why Rachel likes elderly chubbies but hates objective reporting.
You are the one that claimed to know what wasn’t on that piece of paper, not me
How do you know?
edited to add: You know those sites that cheer you on the more you spew unsubstantiated crap?
This ain’t one of them.
If you’re desperately trying to convince yourself that Rachel Maddow used “legitimate polling data” when making ridiculous statements, like “even if Donald Trump wins all battleground states, he’s still losing the election”, I can’t help you :dubious:
Going slightly off-topic, do you think it is Rachel’s repulsive personality that’s responsible not only for making her show unwatchable, but also for her inability to attract a semi-decent looking guy/girl/whatever she’s into?
Off-topic, and rather juvenile.
It’s not as off-topic as you might think. She’s clearly rich, successful (money-wise, since obviously she lost whatever reputation as a journalist she once might have had), but yet she fits the stereotype of a miserable, bitter and unfulfilled lesbian.
If you want to start a hate thread about her in The BBQ Pit, go right ahead. I’m not going to stoop to that here.
negono - you specifically, drop the topic of Maddow in this thread. It’s threadshitting. Feel free to discuss other relevant topics like the tax retirns, etc.
[/ moderating]
Everyone will immediately remind themselves right away of what forum this thread is in. We’re verging into personal attacks.
RickJay
Moderator
I’ll be happy to discuss tax returns.
-
In 2016, New York Times published this fake news article, claiming Donald Trump might not have paid taxes for nearly 2 decades, starting in 1995.
We now know that was a lie–Donald Trump clearly paid taxes in 2005.
Are there any indications that New York Times apologized to its readers for spreading fake news? -
In the same year, Senator Bernie Sanders (admitedly a senile old man), claimed that not only Donald Trump is not going to win the elections (Senator Sanders presumably also used “legitimate polling data”), but that in 2017 he (Donald Trump) is going to start paying his “fair share” of taxes.
We now know that at least in 2005 Donald Trump paid almost twice as much taxes (percentage-wise, since, of course, in absolute terms Donald Trump contributed much more to US Treasury in a single year than Bernie has in his entire life) as Bernie Sanders did in 2014.
Are there any indications that Bernie Sanders apologized to Donald Trump for being a hypocrite?
- At that time did anyone have any proof as to what he had or had not paid?
- “Admittedly a senile old man”-Again with the off topic smears? Also, at that time did anyone know how much Trump had paid in taxes?
As far as I can determine, the only way you can justify these claims of “lying” is if you can show us that these people knew back then what we know now.
Did they?
I’m sorry but your logic is flawed. Let me show that to you by an example.
Let’s say you visit New York City for a week in 2016. During that week, somewhere in the city, a child is kidnapped and murdered. In 2017, the criminal responsible (let’s call him Joe Thug) is apprehended.
Now, would I be justified making statements back in 2016, before Joe Thug is captured, such as “Czarcasm might be a child murderer!” or “How do we know Czarcasm is NOT a murderer?” ? Absolutely not. Sure, technically speaking you “might” have been one (since you were in NYC on the dates in question), but to claim so would be highly irresponsible.
And that is the reason fake news published by NYT and the lies, spread by Bernie Sanders, are so dangerous. Technically speaking, they “might” be true, but of course any sane persons recognizes them as bold-faced lies.
It is very telling that neither NYT nor Bernie Sanders apologized yet for (let’s be charitable here) misinforming their naive audience.
Was I near the scene, and did I have a past history that might indicate that I am capable of such a crime, and did I refuse to tell the police where I was at the time of the kidnapping/murder, or provide any evidence at all that could exonerate me? Did I do everything in my power to make myself look guilty, while telling everyone that getting away with as much as possible without paying the consequences was the sign of a “winner”?
That’s now how it works. if I were to accuse you of being a child murderer, it’d be my responsibility to provide any and all facts (not guesses or suppositions), proving my claims.
Not having a proof, yet making such slanderous accusations, as NYT and Bernie Sanders did, is highly irresponsible.
Come back when you have an analogy that actually fits the situation, o.k.? Bonus points if you can make it fit the facts as they actually are.