Trump shares classified information with Russian officials

[gabosaurus]

Read the Israeli media. Are you going to trust Israeli insiders or breitbart?

[jimnyc]

Read the Israeli media. Are you going to trust Israeli insiders or breitbart?

First off, your links don't tell much, did you even read them? No doubt they spoke of the terrorism issues, and what they got from Israel. But no laws were even remotely broken, nor does it appear things were stated as many think and/or are assuming.

For example: WHAT did Trump state?

---

Look, I've given you ENDLESS amounts of times to dispute things I may post from Breitbart. NOT ONCE have you been able to dispute facts posted. NOT ONCE have you apparently even tried. So how about either start proving things incorrect, or stop the babbling about Breitbart? Simply whining about it, without proving anything whatsoever wrong, is fucking annoying.

Considering Rick and myself have PROVEN much of your shit wrong, and we couldn't care less where it came from.... at least show the same in return. Otherwise, it sounds more like you like to whine about a source JUST so that you can avoid content. At any rate, I'm tired of always going over sources with you, while you solely bash sources, and nothing gets debated. Seriously, look at your reply before getting angry - you ASSUME I/we didn't read your sources, which I did. Then instantly into sources. NO content discussed whatsoever.

[NightTrain]

You just gotta love all the "Unnamed Sources" and "Close Sources" and "Some Sources" and "An Associate".

The devil is in the details and all of us should be sophisticated enough to spot these methods of covering one's ass when manufacturing stories by now.

Here's one that I can report with as much credibility as this bullshit :

An associate of NT's reported a UFO incident last night in his back yard after a BBQ. Another source confirmed the sighting, adding that he saw a memo that NT wrote describing the Unicorn's head affixed to the front of the interstellar spacecraft. NT refuses to confirm or deny the event and did not return phone messages at the time of this publishing.

But a nearby neighbor said she witnessed NT's cat acting oddly the day before and stated that she wouldn't be surprised if the cat was involved, with the cat's record of suspected mischief in the area.

"I think NT needs to come forward with any information he has regarding this UFO incident. We deserve to know what is happening in our neighborhood, and I'll take this to the Homeowner's Association if he won't!" said the Neighbor.

[jimnyc]

You just gotta love all the "Unnamed Sources" and "Close Sources" and "Some Sources" and "An Associate".

And gotta love how some gobble that stuff up as fact. Even folks that used to demand facts and sources, now love this stuff as it allows them to smear Trump.

[gabosaurus]

Jim, you are not getting my point. I discredit breitbart because it is not impartial. Breitbart state media. Sort of like TASS and DPRK. Breitbart is the word of Trump. You will never see anything on breitbart that does not favor the far right. You can attempt to discredit the NY Times, WaPo and CNN all you want, but they report down the middle. They report Trump good and bad. They reported Hillary good and bad. When Trump does something that doesn't make sense, CNN will say it doesn't make sense. Breitbart will find some way to try to make sense out of it. Breitbart and pjmedia are not impartial.

[Black Diamond]

Jim, you are not getting my point. I discredit breitbart because it is not impartial. Breitbart state media. Sort of like TASS and DPRK. Breitbart is the word of Trump. You will never see anything on breitbart that does not favor the far right. You can attempt to discredit the NY Times, WaPo and CNN all you want, but they report down the middle. They report Trump good and bad. They reported Hillary good and bad. When Trump does something that doesn't make sense, CNN will say it doesn't make sense. Breitbart will find some way to try to make sense out of it. Breitbart and pjmedia are not impartial.

trolling is Americas new favorite pastime.

[NightTrain]

Jim, you are not getting my point. I discredit breitbart because it is not impartial. Breitbart state media. Sort of like TASS and DPRK. Breitbart is the word of Trump. You will never see anything on breitbart that does not favor the far right. You can attempt to discredit the NY Times, WaPo and CNN all you want, but they report down the middle. They report Trump good and bad. They reported Hillary good and bad. When Trump does something that doesn't make sense, CNN will say it doesn't make sense. Breitbart will find some way to try to make sense out of it. Breitbart and pjmedia are not impartial.

Says who? You?

You've got a track record of saying some really stupid things and have been unable to back any of them up from what I've seen.

And if you ever DID read Breitbart, which you've stated you never do, you'd see that there ARE critical articles about his performance and critics.

How the hell can you make such a statement when you've said you never read it? Where are you getting your information? That's one hell of an industrial grade bubble you've got there, toots.

[jimnyc]

Jim, you are not getting my point. I discredit breitbart because it is not impartial. Breitbart state media. Sort of like TASS and DPRK. Breitbart is the word of Trump. You will never see anything on breitbart that does not favor the far right. You can attempt to discredit the NY Times, WaPo and CNN all you want, but they report down the middle. They report Trump good and bad. They reported Hillary good and bad. When Trump does something that doesn't make sense, CNN will say it doesn't make sense. Breitbart will find some way to try to make sense out of it. Breitbart and pjmedia are not impartial.

EVERY station/site is impartial. Look at CNN, they are the worst, IMO - but yet I visit them daily. Even with their slant, they still have to post facts, or their credibility is GONE. Of COURSE Breitbart leans to the right, no one ever said otherwise. But that doesn't mean that they post articles full of lies - in fact I haven't seen any proven to be lies yet. I have yet to see a medium/major story that is not covered on ALL of these sites. They just have different slants in who is the writer.

CNN - when McMaster disputed and said the WaPo article was false - I couldn't find a followup from them, but they continued smearing Trump. I think they should have posted a follow up at least, even if jaded, and then let the readers make up their minds.

You may think that those 2 sites you point out are the worst, but from my POV I see CNN and MSNBC as the worst. Makes sense considering I'm a conservative and you're a liberal. But again - regardless of slants in reporting - that's different than lies, which you quite often state that Breitbart does. EVERY site/media or whatever you want to call it is going to have a slant, just the way it is. Look at Breitbart today - all articles about the latest controversy and who wants to go after Trump. Don't act like they hide things from their readers.

Last point - EVEN IF - which it isn't - why not just destroy the facts each time then? Why not prove things a lie? Prove things otherwise? Wouldn't that make more sense than "blah blah blah Breitbart source blah blah blah" ? Same with me - if you post something from some site I feel is WAY leaning, and I find an issue with the "facts", or I think it's an outright lie, I couldn't give a crap about the source at that very moment, my ass is proving that shit is a lie and/or BS, guaranteed.

[Black Diamond]

EVERY station/site is impartial. Look at CNN, they are the worst, IMO - but yet I visit them daily. Even with their slant, they still have to post facts, or their credibility is GONE. Of COURSE Breitbart leans to the right, no one ever said otherwise. But that doesn't mean that they post articles full of lies - in fact I haven't seen any proven to be lies yet. I have yet to see a medium/major story that is not covered on ALL of these sites. They just have different slants in who is the writer.

CNN - when McMaster disputed and said the WaPo article was false - I couldn't find a followup from them, but they continued smearing Trump. I think they should have posted a follow up at least, even if jaded, and then let the readers make up their minds.

You may think that those 2 sites you point out are the worst, but from my POV I see CNN and MSNBC as the worst. Makes sense considering I'm a conservative and you're a liberal. But again - regardless of slants in reporting - that's different than lies, which you quite often state that Breitbart does. EVERY site/media or whatever you want to call it is going to have a slant, just the way it is. Look at Breitbart today - all articles about the latest controversy and who wants to go after Trump. Don't act like they hide things from their readers.

Last point - EVEN IF - which it isn't - why not just destroy the facts each time then? Why not prove things a lie? Prove things otherwise? Wouldn't that make more sense than "blah blah blah Breitbart source blah blah blah" ? Same with me - if you post something from some site I feel is WAY leaning, and I find an issue with the "facts", or I think it's an outright lie, I couldn't give a crap about the source at that very moment, my ass is proving that shit is a lie and/or BS, guaranteed.

How do you visit CNN and the like without getting aggravated ?

[jimnyc]

How do you visit CNN and the like without getting aggravated ?

Trust me, it IS, and just as much so at MSNBC. But you actually will find things from time to time that you may not see elsewhere. Plus, it's just interesting, daily, to see the different angles of reporting.

[Kathianne]

Jim, you are not getting my point. I discredit breitbart because it is not impartial. Breitbart state media. Sort of like TASS and DPRK. Breitbart is the word of Trump. You will never see anything on breitbart that does not favor the far right. You can attempt to discredit the NY Times, WaPo and CNN all you want, but they report down the middle. They report Trump good and bad. They reported Hillary good and bad. When Trump does something that doesn't make sense, CNN will say it doesn't make sense. Breitbart will find some way to try to make sense out of it. Breitbart and pjmedia are not impartial.

WaPo and the NYT are not unbiased. Not in news, certainly not on the choice of editorials. PJ Media has some that are pro and anti-Trump, much like Hot Air. I'm not keen on Breitbart since Andrew died, though that doesn't mean that there isn't good stories, there are. Actually one reason to read it, it does have a finger on the pulse of the admin. Drudge couldn't have been more in the bag for Trump during and immediately following the election. Not so one sided anymore. My personal thinking is that Matt is trying to get Trump to see some of his problems, which are legion at this point.

[Black Diamond]

WaPo and the NYT are not unbiased. Not in news, certainly not on the choice of editorials. PJ Media has some that are pro and anti-Trump, much like Hot Air. I'm not keen on Breitbart since Andrew died, though that doesn't mean that there isn't good stories, there are. Actually one reason to read it, it does have a finger on the pulse of the admin. Drudge couldn't have been more in the bag for Trump during and immediately following the election. Not so one sided anymore. My personal thinking is that Matt is trying to get Trump to see some of his problems, which are legion at this point.

I haven't read drudge. Are they as bad as hannity? I've never been of hannitys. Only reason I ever watch is because he has Newt and Rudy on frequently.

I would much rather hear analyses from krauthammer and rove.

[Kathianne]

I haven't read drudge. Are they as bad as hannity? I've never been of hannitys. Only reason I ever watch is because he has Newt and Rudy on frequently.

I would much rather hear analyses from krauthammer and rove.

Until 2 months ago or so, Drudge, Hannity, Fox & Friends-it was all the same. Drudge has started putting some of the down news regarding Trump. I think he's very concerned where the tweeting, firing, and even the nepotism are going.

I don't find Rove correct all that often, but Krauthammer's analysis is usually spot on.

[gabosaurus]

My problem is not even with breitbart and pjmedia themselves. It is the over reliance on them as sources. I try to use as many sources as possible. One of my big problems with Balu was that he always used some outlet of TASS as a source. TASS is state run media. Same with breitbart. It is Trump's media arm. If you want to introduce a topic, try using more than a handful of source. Try crossing the road and read some sites you don't normally access. It doesn't help your argument if you use the same predictable sources every time.

[Black Diamond]

My problem is not even with breitbart and pjmedia themselves. It is the over reliance on them as sources. I try to use as many sources as possible. One of my big problems with Balu was that he always used some outlet of TASS as a source. TASS is state run media. Same with breitbart. It is Trump's media arm. If you want to introduce a topic, try using more than a handful of source. Try crossing the road and read some sites you don't normally access. It doesn't help your argument if you use the same predictable sources every time.

Breitbart and hannity attempt to cancel out the rest of the media that wants trump to hang.