I read the article. Its quite ridiculous. But given it comes from The New Yorker, I'm not surprised.
Facts are ridiculous now? Anyone with two eyes can see Fox is propaganda.
Last edited:
I read the article. Its quite ridiculous. But given it comes from The New Yorker, I'm not surprised.

Facts are ridiculous now? Anyone with two eyes can see Fox is propaganda.
First of all, I'm not the one posting "faux news" or "fake news" every time someone posts an article going after someone on the left. That would be you, arguing regularly that "facts are ridiculous".
Second, I'm not saying what the New Yorker claims isn't true - just that it is rich that the New Yorker is calling some other media outlet "propaganda" and "partisan".
Hit pieces concocted by right wing "ethics watchdogs" and pushed by right wing tabloids are non-stories that will be dropped in the next two weeks.
View attachment 198625
So what? If I wanted to waste the time I could easily come up with the same amount of left wing hit pieces on Trump. Hell, that shit has been going on since Trump won the election. You folks are always on about hit pieces.
You keep thinking there's some holier than thou approach you can use on this stuff. Both sides of the fence are tainted, corrupt and propaganda. The only question is: when will you realize it?
And you keep bringing up false equivalencies. Here's a tip that may help you out, if the authorities are investigating it, it's likely legit, has legs, and will get picked up by reputable sources. If it's the next big story that gets dropped in 2 weeks, it's just smoke.
For example:
"The Clinton Foundation is a slush fund for the Clintons." Fake news
"The Trump Foundation is a slush fund for the Trumps that shuttered and is under investigation". Actual news