25 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Washington Times providing its typical poor journalism, printing accusations from "Senior Republicans" with no substantiation.

 

Your second source re-iterates what I've repeatedly posted, some of the dossier has been verified, none of it has been disproven.

 

25 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Washington Times providing its typical poor journalism, printing accusations from "Senior Republicans" with no substantiation.

 

Your second source re-iterates what I've repeatedly posted, some of the dossier has been verified, none of it has been disproven.

I was gonna put Fox and a few others in there too. Unfortunately the sources you like don't usually report the news, that's against their narrative.   So whats not substantiated with Clinton Associates giving info to Steele and that the committee asked for a criminal investigation .

Also your posts make it look like all of the opposition research docs are factual .When their not.

4 minutes ago, riclag said:

 

I was gonna put Fox and a few others in there too. Unfortunately the sources you like don't usually report the news, that's against their narrative.   So whats not substantiated with Clinton giving info to Steele and that the committee asked for a criminal investigation .

Also your posts make it look like all of the opposition research docs are factual .When their not.

Your link was a Washington Times article repeating the accusations made by senior Republicans and giving no evidence to support the accusations.  That's not news, that's gossip. 

 

What is substantiated about Clinton giving info to Steele?  Is the committee asking for a criminal referral the same one that released the memo that proves nothing?

 

People paying for opposition research expect factual information. Perhaps opposition research sometimes has false information.  Can you give examples of this happening?  Not research that you don't want to believe, not research that has not been independently verified, but actual, proven incorrect opposition research?

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Really? Slate is very rigorous about its fact checking. And we know that because they actually publish a weekly report of facts they got wrong. And clearly, when you've got nothing, go after the source rather than dealing with its facts and arguments. A sad and revealing Breitbartian move on your part. Next you'll be telling us you were a Bernie supporter.

 

You know I was a Sanders supporter. Even wrote his name in in the presidential election. That despite the fact I only agreed with about half of his proposals. I'm always amazed you guys will go to the wall for each and every item in your candidates agenda and defend them against each and every misdeed.  Because it isn't really about the candidate is it? It is about your own need not to look foolish for your choices. And that in a nutshell is what is dividing America.

On 2/4/2018 at 6:12 PM, boomerangutang said:

If Trump or his shielders said his turd smelled like roses, all Trump fans would agree.

 

Maybe it has something to do with the age of television (being told what to think from a screen) transformed into the age of hand-held devices (being told what to think by an even smaller screen) - .....maybe that explains how so many people think like sheeple.

That works two ways, doesn't it?