Donald Trump
Comments
-
More swamp draining is needed to make room for all the yachts.....
0 -
But I thought I saw where the White House issued a clarification of their claims of the tape being spliced or something? I'll try to find it and post it. My point is, is that I'd believe Maddow over a right wing blogger who posted all of 5 times Maddow was wrong. I don't have the time to check the 5 but if I had to guess, 4.5 of them would be BS. Further, the issues he's called her out on are so minimal in comparison to what Team Trump Treason spews everyday. Hows that denuclerixation of NK coming along, for example? Tough on Russia, maybe? Build a wall, perhaps? Consider the source is all I'm saying. WaPo might have run with this blogger's accuation prior to checking it. Purposeful obsfucation of issues/controversies is part of the Team Trump Treason playbook.PJ_Soul said:
No. As I said, I would have posted the source article from the Washington Post but couldn't. I realized that this wasn't a good source, but the story is from WaPo so that's fine. That's why I mentioned it.Halifax2TheMax said:
Are you familiar with “legal-insurrection.com?”PJ_Soul said:For the sake of sanity and truth, no, the White House did not edit the video of the Trump/Putin press conference. I hope Rachel is ashamed of herself for that blunder.Sorry, Maddow, But the White House Did Not Edit Video to Eliminate Reuters Question to Putin
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/sorry-maddow-but-the-white-house-did-not-edit-video-to-eliminate-reuters-question-to-putin/
I would have posted the actual WaPo article refuting that rumour, but I've reached my free article limit for the month.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Fine, but I don't want to be paranoid here. I think it seems more likely that the WH didn't do that than it is that they did, and from what I've seen, and considering the question under scrutiny, with the info I've seen, I'm going occams razor on this one until I have reason to feel otherwise. I really don't feel that the WaPo would have run with a right wing blogger's accusation without checking it - I give them way more credit than that, especially when it's something that actually sides with Trump. That seems way less believable to me that the alternative.Halifax2TheMax said:
But I thought I saw where the White House issued a clarification of their claims of the tape being spliced or something? I'll try to find it and post it. My point is, is that I'd believe Maddow over a right wing blogger who posted all of 5 times Maddow was wrong. I don't have the time to check the 5 but if I had to guess, 4.5 of them would be BS. Further, the issues he's called her out on are so minimal in comparison to what Team Trump Treason spews everyday. Hows that denuclerixation of NK coming along, for example? Tough on Russia, maybe? Build a wall, perhaps? Consider the source is all I'm saying. WaPo might have run with this blogger's accuation prior to checking it. Purposeful obsfucation of issues/controversies is part of the Team Trump Treason playbook.PJ_Soul said:
No. As I said, I would have posted the source article from the Washington Post but couldn't. I realized that this wasn't a good source, but the story is from WaPo so that's fine. That's why I mentioned it.Halifax2TheMax said:
Are you familiar with “legal-insurrection.com?”PJ_Soul said:For the sake of sanity and truth, no, the White House did not edit the video of the Trump/Putin press conference. I hope Rachel is ashamed of herself for that blunder.Sorry, Maddow, But the White House Did Not Edit Video to Eliminate Reuters Question to Putin
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/sorry-maddow-but-the-white-house-did-not-edit-video-to-eliminate-reuters-question-to-putin/
I would have posted the actual WaPo article refuting that rumour, but I've reached my free article limit for the month.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
It’s still not how it went down as reported by the WaPo and the insurrection blogger. The”White House updated their transcript” after it originally omitted the Putin on the ritz question and response.PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but I don't want to be paranoid here. I think it seems more likely that the WH didn't do that than it is that they did, and from what I've seen, and considering the question under scrutiny, with the info I've seen, I'm going occams razor on this one until I have reason to feel otherwise. I really don't feel that the WaPo would have run with a right wing blogger's accusation without checking it - I give them way more credit than that, especially when it's something that actually sides with Trump. That seems way less believable to me that the alternative.Halifax2TheMax said:
But I thought I saw where the White House issued a clarification of their claims of the tape being spliced or something? I'll try to find it and post it. My point is, is that I'd believe Maddow over a right wing blogger who posted all of 5 times Maddow was wrong. I don't have the time to check the 5 but if I had to guess, 4.5 of them would be BS. Further, the issues he's called her out on are so minimal in comparison to what Team Trump Treason spews everyday. Hows that denuclerixation of NK coming along, for example? Tough on Russia, maybe? Build a wall, perhaps? Consider the source is all I'm saying. WaPo might have run with this blogger's accuation prior to checking it. Purposeful obsfucation of issues/controversies is part of the Team Trump Treason playbook.PJ_Soul said:
No. As I said, I would have posted the source article from the Washington Post but couldn't. I realized that this wasn't a good source, but the story is from WaPo so that's fine. That's why I mentioned it.Halifax2TheMax said:
Are you familiar with “legal-insurrection.com?”PJ_Soul said:For the sake of sanity and truth, no, the White House did not edit the video of the Trump/Putin press conference. I hope Rachel is ashamed of herself for that blunder.Sorry, Maddow, But the White House Did Not Edit Video to Eliminate Reuters Question to Putin
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/sorry-maddow-but-the-white-house-did-not-edit-video-to-eliminate-reuters-question-to-putin/
I would have posted the actual WaPo article refuting that rumour, but I've reached my free article limit for the month.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/25/trump-putin-and-case-missing-question/
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Fine, but that isn't what Maddow reported. Hey, you know I'm not going to defend Trump, lol. But I always want to stay as balanced as I can (which really isn't very hard in this era of Trump. A balanced reaction to Trump means I get to loath him and his actions 99% of the time without bias, lol).Halifax2TheMax said:
It’s still not how it went down as reported by the WaPo and the insurrection blogger. The”White House updated their transcript” after it originally omitted the Putin on the ritz question and response.PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but I don't want to be paranoid here. I think it seems more likely that the WH didn't do that than it is that they did, and from what I've seen, and considering the question under scrutiny, with the info I've seen, I'm going occams razor on this one until I have reason to feel otherwise. I really don't feel that the WaPo would have run with a right wing blogger's accusation without checking it - I give them way more credit than that, especially when it's something that actually sides with Trump. That seems way less believable to me that the alternative.Halifax2TheMax said:
But I thought I saw where the White House issued a clarification of their claims of the tape being spliced or something? I'll try to find it and post it. My point is, is that I'd believe Maddow over a right wing blogger who posted all of 5 times Maddow was wrong. I don't have the time to check the 5 but if I had to guess, 4.5 of them would be BS. Further, the issues he's called her out on are so minimal in comparison to what Team Trump Treason spews everyday. Hows that denuclerixation of NK coming along, for example? Tough on Russia, maybe? Build a wall, perhaps? Consider the source is all I'm saying. WaPo might have run with this blogger's accuation prior to checking it. Purposeful obsfucation of issues/controversies is part of the Team Trump Treason playbook.PJ_Soul said:
No. As I said, I would have posted the source article from the Washington Post but couldn't. I realized that this wasn't a good source, but the story is from WaPo so that's fine. That's why I mentioned it.Halifax2TheMax said:
Are you familiar with “legal-insurrection.com?”PJ_Soul said:For the sake of sanity and truth, no, the White House did not edit the video of the Trump/Putin press conference. I hope Rachel is ashamed of herself for that blunder.Sorry, Maddow, But the White House Did Not Edit Video to Eliminate Reuters Question to Putin
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/sorry-maddow-but-the-white-house-did-not-edit-video-to-eliminate-reuters-question-to-putin/
I would have posted the actual WaPo article refuting that rumour, but I've reached my free article limit for the month.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/25/trump-putin-and-case-missing-question/
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pol-mueller-trump-twitter-obstruction-20180726-story.html
Special counsel Robert Mueller is eyeing President Trump's Twitter habit as part of broad obstruction investigation
I miss igotid880 -
Maddow reported that the White House omitted the putin on the ritz question and answer in their official transcript and released video. Two days after she reported this the White House updated both. How was maddow’s Reporting wrong? Further, do you think the White House press operation made a mistake or purposefully omitted putin on the ritz’s reply? Further, had no one called them out, would they have corrected it and, conversely, if they hadn’t made a mistake, why would they correct it?PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but that isn't what Maddow reported. Hey, you know I'm not going to defend Trump, lol. But I always want to stay as balanced as I can (which really isn't very hard in this era of Trump. A balanced reaction to Trump means I get to loath him and his actions 99% of the time without bias, lol).Halifax2TheMax said:
It’s still not how it went down as reported by the WaPo and the insurrection blogger. The”White House updated their transcript” after it originally omitted the Putin on the ritz question and response.PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but I don't want to be paranoid here. I think it seems more likely that the WH didn't do that than it is that they did, and from what I've seen, and considering the question under scrutiny, with the info I've seen, I'm going occams razor on this one until I have reason to feel otherwise. I really don't feel that the WaPo would have run with a right wing blogger's accusation without checking it - I give them way more credit than that, especially when it's something that actually sides with Trump. That seems way less believable to me that the alternative.Halifax2TheMax said:
But I thought I saw where the White House issued a clarification of their claims of the tape being spliced or something? I'll try to find it and post it. My point is, is that I'd believe Maddow over a right wing blogger who posted all of 5 times Maddow was wrong. I don't have the time to check the 5 but if I had to guess, 4.5 of them would be BS. Further, the issues he's called her out on are so minimal in comparison to what Team Trump Treason spews everyday. Hows that denuclerixation of NK coming along, for example? Tough on Russia, maybe? Build a wall, perhaps? Consider the source is all I'm saying. WaPo might have run with this blogger's accuation prior to checking it. Purposeful obsfucation of issues/controversies is part of the Team Trump Treason playbook.PJ_Soul said:
No. As I said, I would have posted the source article from the Washington Post but couldn't. I realized that this wasn't a good source, but the story is from WaPo so that's fine. That's why I mentioned it.Halifax2TheMax said:
Are you familiar with “legal-insurrection.com?”PJ_Soul said:For the sake of sanity and truth, no, the White House did not edit the video of the Trump/Putin press conference. I hope Rachel is ashamed of herself for that blunder.Sorry, Maddow, But the White House Did Not Edit Video to Eliminate Reuters Question to Putin
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/sorry-maddow-but-the-white-house-did-not-edit-video-to-eliminate-reuters-question-to-putin/
I would have posted the actual WaPo article refuting that rumour, but I've reached my free article limit for the month.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/25/trump-putin-and-case-missing-question/
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Moddow reported that the WH edited the PC deliberately to remove content. From what I've read about this and from the press conference that I saw, I do not think the WH purposefully omitted Putin's reply.Halifax2TheMax said:
Maddow reported that the White House omitted the putin on the ritz question and answer in their official transcript and released video. Two days after she reported this the White House updated both. How was maddow’s Reporting wrong? Further, do you think the White House press operation made a mistake or purposefully omitted putin on the ritz’s reply? Further, had no one called them out, would they have corrected it and, conversely, if they hadn’t made a mistake, why would they correct it?PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but that isn't what Maddow reported. Hey, you know I'm not going to defend Trump, lol. But I always want to stay as balanced as I can (which really isn't very hard in this era of Trump. A balanced reaction to Trump means I get to loath him and his actions 99% of the time without bias, lol).Halifax2TheMax said:
It’s still not how it went down as reported by the WaPo and the insurrection blogger. The”White House updated their transcript” after it originally omitted the Putin on the ritz question and response.PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but I don't want to be paranoid here. I think it seems more likely that the WH didn't do that than it is that they did, and from what I've seen, and considering the question under scrutiny, with the info I've seen, I'm going occams razor on this one until I have reason to feel otherwise. I really don't feel that the WaPo would have run with a right wing blogger's accusation without checking it - I give them way more credit than that, especially when it's something that actually sides with Trump. That seems way less believable to me that the alternative.Halifax2TheMax said:
But I thought I saw where the White House issued a clarification of their claims of the tape being spliced or something? I'll try to find it and post it. My point is, is that I'd believe Maddow over a right wing blogger who posted all of 5 times Maddow was wrong. I don't have the time to check the 5 but if I had to guess, 4.5 of them would be BS. Further, the issues he's called her out on are so minimal in comparison to what Team Trump Treason spews everyday. Hows that denuclerixation of NK coming along, for example? Tough on Russia, maybe? Build a wall, perhaps? Consider the source is all I'm saying. WaPo might have run with this blogger's accuation prior to checking it. Purposeful obsfucation of issues/controversies is part of the Team Trump Treason playbook.PJ_Soul said:
No. As I said, I would have posted the source article from the Washington Post but couldn't. I realized that this wasn't a good source, but the story is from WaPo so that's fine. That's why I mentioned it.Halifax2TheMax said:
Are you familiar with “legal-insurrection.com?”PJ_Soul said:For the sake of sanity and truth, no, the White House did not edit the video of the Trump/Putin press conference. I hope Rachel is ashamed of herself for that blunder.Sorry, Maddow, But the White House Did Not Edit Video to Eliminate Reuters Question to Putin
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/sorry-maddow-but-the-white-house-did-not-edit-video-to-eliminate-reuters-question-to-putin/
I would have posted the actual WaPo article refuting that rumour, but I've reached my free article limit for the month.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/25/trump-putin-and-case-missing-question/
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
so the crime fits the punnishment ? is that what your sayin ? This administration basically kidnapped children from their parents ...OnWis97 said:
They shouldn't have committed the misdemeanor they did?my2hands said:May not see kids again
Anybody in here dare to defend this shit??? Heartless bastardsjesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
Then why the correction by the White House 2 days after being reported by Maddow? It’s not like putin on the ritz’s answer wasn’t being reported on the same day the question was asked. So the White House press office made an “honest” mistake on the most controversial question asked during that press conference?PJ_Soul said:
Moddow reported that the WH edited the PC deliberately to remove content. From what I've read about this and from the press conference that I saw, I do not think the WH purposefully omitted Putin's reply.Halifax2TheMax said:
Maddow reported that the White House omitted the putin on the ritz question and answer in their official transcript and released video. Two days after she reported this the White House updated both. How was maddow’s Reporting wrong? Further, do you think the White House press operation made a mistake or purposefully omitted putin on the ritz’s reply? Further, had no one called them out, would they have corrected it and, conversely, if they hadn’t made a mistake, why would they correct it?PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but that isn't what Maddow reported. Hey, you know I'm not going to defend Trump, lol. But I always want to stay as balanced as I can (which really isn't very hard in this era of Trump. A balanced reaction to Trump means I get to loath him and his actions 99% of the time without bias, lol).Halifax2TheMax said:
It’s still not how it went down as reported by the WaPo and the insurrection blogger. The”White House updated their transcript” after it originally omitted the Putin on the ritz question and response.PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but I don't want to be paranoid here. I think it seems more likely that the WH didn't do that than it is that they did, and from what I've seen, and considering the question under scrutiny, with the info I've seen, I'm going occams razor on this one until I have reason to feel otherwise. I really don't feel that the WaPo would have run with a right wing blogger's accusation without checking it - I give them way more credit than that, especially when it's something that actually sides with Trump. That seems way less believable to me that the alternative.Halifax2TheMax said:
But I thought I saw where the White House issued a clarification of their claims of the tape being spliced or something? I'll try to find it and post it. My point is, is that I'd believe Maddow over a right wing blogger who posted all of 5 times Maddow was wrong. I don't have the time to check the 5 but if I had to guess, 4.5 of them would be BS. Further, the issues he's called her out on are so minimal in comparison to what Team Trump Treason spews everyday. Hows that denuclerixation of NK coming along, for example? Tough on Russia, maybe? Build a wall, perhaps? Consider the source is all I'm saying. WaPo might have run with this blogger's accuation prior to checking it. Purposeful obsfucation of issues/controversies is part of the Team Trump Treason playbook.PJ_Soul said:
No. As I said, I would have posted the source article from the Washington Post but couldn't. I realized that this wasn't a good source, but the story is from WaPo so that's fine. That's why I mentioned it.Halifax2TheMax said:
Are you familiar with “legal-insurrection.com?”PJ_Soul said:For the sake of sanity and truth, no, the White House did not edit the video of the Trump/Putin press conference. I hope Rachel is ashamed of herself for that blunder.Sorry, Maddow, But the White House Did Not Edit Video to Eliminate Reuters Question to Putin
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/sorry-maddow-but-the-white-house-did-not-edit-video-to-eliminate-reuters-question-to-putin/
I would have posted the actual WaPo article refuting that rumour, but I've reached my free article limit for the month.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/25/trump-putin-and-case-missing-question/
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
if noone had indeed noticed this do you think the WH would of corrected it , i don't trust this administartion at all they will try anything and see what they can get away with ...Example kids being separated from parents if no one had reported on that issue do yoiu believe this administartion would of stopped it ? i say no way the only reason Baffoon walkd it back was because of the backlash .....PJ_Soul said:
Moddow reported that the WH edited the PC deliberately to remove content. From what I've read about this and from the press conference that I saw, I do not think the WH purposefully omitted Putin's reply.Halifax2TheMax said:
Maddow reported that the White House omitted the putin on the ritz question and answer in their official transcript and released video. Two days after she reported this the White House updated both. How was maddow’s Reporting wrong? Further, do you think the White House press operation made a mistake or purposefully omitted putin on the ritz’s reply? Further, had no one called them out, would they have corrected it and, conversely, if they hadn’t made a mistake, why would they correct it?PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but that isn't what Maddow reported. Hey, you know I'm not going to defend Trump, lol. But I always want to stay as balanced as I can (which really isn't very hard in this era of Trump. A balanced reaction to Trump means I get to loath him and his actions 99% of the time without bias, lol).Halifax2TheMax said:
It’s still not how it went down as reported by the WaPo and the insurrection blogger. The”White House updated their transcript” after it originally omitted the Putin on the ritz question and response.PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but I don't want to be paranoid here. I think it seems more likely that the WH didn't do that than it is that they did, and from what I've seen, and considering the question under scrutiny, with the info I've seen, I'm going occams razor on this one until I have reason to feel otherwise. I really don't feel that the WaPo would have run with a right wing blogger's accusation without checking it - I give them way more credit than that, especially when it's something that actually sides with Trump. That seems way less believable to me that the alternative.Halifax2TheMax said:
But I thought I saw where the White House issued a clarification of their claims of the tape being spliced or something? I'll try to find it and post it. My point is, is that I'd believe Maddow over a right wing blogger who posted all of 5 times Maddow was wrong. I don't have the time to check the 5 but if I had to guess, 4.5 of them would be BS. Further, the issues he's called her out on are so minimal in comparison to what Team Trump Treason spews everyday. Hows that denuclerixation of NK coming along, for example? Tough on Russia, maybe? Build a wall, perhaps? Consider the source is all I'm saying. WaPo might have run with this blogger's accuation prior to checking it. Purposeful obsfucation of issues/controversies is part of the Team Trump Treason playbook.PJ_Soul said:
No. As I said, I would have posted the source article from the Washington Post but couldn't. I realized that this wasn't a good source, but the story is from WaPo so that's fine. That's why I mentioned it.Halifax2TheMax said:
Are you familiar with “legal-insurrection.com?”PJ_Soul said:For the sake of sanity and truth, no, the White House did not edit the video of the Trump/Putin press conference. I hope Rachel is ashamed of herself for that blunder.Sorry, Maddow, But the White House Did Not Edit Video to Eliminate Reuters Question to Putin
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/sorry-maddow-but-the-white-house-did-not-edit-video-to-eliminate-reuters-question-to-putin/
I would have posted the actual WaPo article refuting that rumour, but I've reached my free article limit for the month.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/25/trump-putin-and-case-missing-question/jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
Pure incompetence. That is hardly difficult to believe with these idiots, right?Halifax2TheMax said:
Then why the correction by the White House 2 days after being reported by Maddow? It’s not like putin on the ritz’s answer wasn’t being reported on the same day the question was asked. So the White House press office made an “honest” mistake on the most controversial question asked during that press conference?PJ_Soul said:
Moddow reported that the WH edited the PC deliberately to remove content. From what I've read about this and from the press conference that I saw, I do not think the WH purposefully omitted Putin's reply.Halifax2TheMax said:
Maddow reported that the White House omitted the putin on the ritz question and answer in their official transcript and released video. Two days after she reported this the White House updated both. How was maddow’s Reporting wrong? Further, do you think the White House press operation made a mistake or purposefully omitted putin on the ritz’s reply? Further, had no one called them out, would they have corrected it and, conversely, if they hadn’t made a mistake, why would they correct it?PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but that isn't what Maddow reported. Hey, you know I'm not going to defend Trump, lol. But I always want to stay as balanced as I can (which really isn't very hard in this era of Trump. A balanced reaction to Trump means I get to loath him and his actions 99% of the time without bias, lol).Halifax2TheMax said:
It’s still not how it went down as reported by the WaPo and the insurrection blogger. The”White House updated their transcript” after it originally omitted the Putin on the ritz question and response.PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but I don't want to be paranoid here. I think it seems more likely that the WH didn't do that than it is that they did, and from what I've seen, and considering the question under scrutiny, with the info I've seen, I'm going occams razor on this one until I have reason to feel otherwise. I really don't feel that the WaPo would have run with a right wing blogger's accusation without checking it - I give them way more credit than that, especially when it's something that actually sides with Trump. That seems way less believable to me that the alternative.Halifax2TheMax said:
But I thought I saw where the White House issued a clarification of their claims of the tape being spliced or something? I'll try to find it and post it. My point is, is that I'd believe Maddow over a right wing blogger who posted all of 5 times Maddow was wrong. I don't have the time to check the 5 but if I had to guess, 4.5 of them would be BS. Further, the issues he's called her out on are so minimal in comparison to what Team Trump Treason spews everyday. Hows that denuclerixation of NK coming along, for example? Tough on Russia, maybe? Build a wall, perhaps? Consider the source is all I'm saying. WaPo might have run with this blogger's accuation prior to checking it. Purposeful obsfucation of issues/controversies is part of the Team Trump Treason playbook.PJ_Soul said:
No. As I said, I would have posted the source article from the Washington Post but couldn't. I realized that this wasn't a good source, but the story is from WaPo so that's fine. That's why I mentioned it.Halifax2TheMax said:
Are you familiar with “legal-insurrection.com?”PJ_Soul said:For the sake of sanity and truth, no, the White House did not edit the video of the Trump/Putin press conference. I hope Rachel is ashamed of herself for that blunder.Sorry, Maddow, But the White House Did Not Edit Video to Eliminate Reuters Question to Putin
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/sorry-maddow-but-the-white-house-did-not-edit-video-to-eliminate-reuters-question-to-putin/
I would have posted the actual WaPo article refuting that rumour, but I've reached my free article limit for the month.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/25/trump-putin-and-case-missing-question/
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
No, they wouldn't have corrected it... I don't think they even would have fucking noticed it themselves though, lol.josevolution said:
if noone had indeed noticed this do you think the WH would of corrected it , i don't trust this administartion at all they will try anything and see what they can get away with ...Example kids being separated from parents if no one had reported on that issue do yoiu believe this administartion would of stopped it ? i say no way the only reason Baffoon walkd it back was because of the backlash .....PJ_Soul said:
Moddow reported that the WH edited the PC deliberately to remove content. From what I've read about this and from the press conference that I saw, I do not think the WH purposefully omitted Putin's reply.Halifax2TheMax said:
Maddow reported that the White House omitted the putin on the ritz question and answer in their official transcript and released video. Two days after she reported this the White House updated both. How was maddow’s Reporting wrong? Further, do you think the White House press operation made a mistake or purposefully omitted putin on the ritz’s reply? Further, had no one called them out, would they have corrected it and, conversely, if they hadn’t made a mistake, why would they correct it?PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but that isn't what Maddow reported. Hey, you know I'm not going to defend Trump, lol. But I always want to stay as balanced as I can (which really isn't very hard in this era of Trump. A balanced reaction to Trump means I get to loath him and his actions 99% of the time without bias, lol).Halifax2TheMax said:
It’s still not how it went down as reported by the WaPo and the insurrection blogger. The”White House updated their transcript” after it originally omitted the Putin on the ritz question and response.PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but I don't want to be paranoid here. I think it seems more likely that the WH didn't do that than it is that they did, and from what I've seen, and considering the question under scrutiny, with the info I've seen, I'm going occams razor on this one until I have reason to feel otherwise. I really don't feel that the WaPo would have run with a right wing blogger's accusation without checking it - I give them way more credit than that, especially when it's something that actually sides with Trump. That seems way less believable to me that the alternative.Halifax2TheMax said:
But I thought I saw where the White House issued a clarification of their claims of the tape being spliced or something? I'll try to find it and post it. My point is, is that I'd believe Maddow over a right wing blogger who posted all of 5 times Maddow was wrong. I don't have the time to check the 5 but if I had to guess, 4.5 of them would be BS. Further, the issues he's called her out on are so minimal in comparison to what Team Trump Treason spews everyday. Hows that denuclerixation of NK coming along, for example? Tough on Russia, maybe? Build a wall, perhaps? Consider the source is all I'm saying. WaPo might have run with this blogger's accuation prior to checking it. Purposeful obsfucation of issues/controversies is part of the Team Trump Treason playbook.PJ_Soul said:
No. As I said, I would have posted the source article from the Washington Post but couldn't. I realized that this wasn't a good source, but the story is from WaPo so that's fine. That's why I mentioned it.Halifax2TheMax said:
Are you familiar with “legal-insurrection.com?”PJ_Soul said:For the sake of sanity and truth, no, the White House did not edit the video of the Trump/Putin press conference. I hope Rachel is ashamed of herself for that blunder.Sorry, Maddow, But the White House Did Not Edit Video to Eliminate Reuters Question to Putin
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/sorry-maddow-but-the-white-house-did-not-edit-video-to-eliminate-reuters-question-to-putin/
I would have posted the actual WaPo article refuting that rumour, but I've reached my free article limit for the month.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/25/trump-putin-and-case-missing-question/
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
I go back and forth on this. What is malice and what is idiocy? All I know is if it isn’t malice, there are certainly people in this administration acting with malice, thrilled that the public can’t tell which it actually is. Not a great place to be.PJ_Soul said:
Pure incompetence. That is hardly difficult to believe with these idiots, right?Halifax2TheMax said:
Then why the correction by the White House 2 days after being reported by Maddow? It’s not like putin on the ritz’s answer wasn’t being reported on the same day the question was asked. So the White House press office made an “honest” mistake on the most controversial question asked during that press conference?PJ_Soul said:
Moddow reported that the WH edited the PC deliberately to remove content. From what I've read about this and from the press conference that I saw, I do not think the WH purposefully omitted Putin's reply.Halifax2TheMax said:
Maddow reported that the White House omitted the putin on the ritz question and answer in their official transcript and released video. Two days after she reported this the White House updated both. How was maddow’s Reporting wrong? Further, do you think the White House press operation made a mistake or purposefully omitted putin on the ritz’s reply? Further, had no one called them out, would they have corrected it and, conversely, if they hadn’t made a mistake, why would they correct it?PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but that isn't what Maddow reported. Hey, you know I'm not going to defend Trump, lol. But I always want to stay as balanced as I can (which really isn't very hard in this era of Trump. A balanced reaction to Trump means I get to loath him and his actions 99% of the time without bias, lol).Halifax2TheMax said:
It’s still not how it went down as reported by the WaPo and the insurrection blogger. The”White House updated their transcript” after it originally omitted the Putin on the ritz question and response.PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but I don't want to be paranoid here. I think it seems more likely that the WH didn't do that than it is that they did, and from what I've seen, and considering the question under scrutiny, with the info I've seen, I'm going occams razor on this one until I have reason to feel otherwise. I really don't feel that the WaPo would have run with a right wing blogger's accusation without checking it - I give them way more credit than that, especially when it's something that actually sides with Trump. That seems way less believable to me that the alternative.Halifax2TheMax said:
But I thought I saw where the White House issued a clarification of their claims of the tape being spliced or something? I'll try to find it and post it. My point is, is that I'd believe Maddow over a right wing blogger who posted all of 5 times Maddow was wrong. I don't have the time to check the 5 but if I had to guess, 4.5 of them would be BS. Further, the issues he's called her out on are so minimal in comparison to what Team Trump Treason spews everyday. Hows that denuclerixation of NK coming along, for example? Tough on Russia, maybe? Build a wall, perhaps? Consider the source is all I'm saying. WaPo might have run with this blogger's accuation prior to checking it. Purposeful obsfucation of issues/controversies is part of the Team Trump Treason playbook.PJ_Soul said:
No. As I said, I would have posted the source article from the Washington Post but couldn't. I realized that this wasn't a good source, but the story is from WaPo so that's fine. That's why I mentioned it.Halifax2TheMax said:
Are you familiar with “legal-insurrection.com?”PJ_Soul said:For the sake of sanity and truth, no, the White House did not edit the video of the Trump/Putin press conference. I hope Rachel is ashamed of herself for that blunder.Sorry, Maddow, But the White House Did Not Edit Video to Eliminate Reuters Question to Putin
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/sorry-maddow-but-the-white-house-did-not-edit-video-to-eliminate-reuters-question-to-putin/
I would have posted the actual WaPo article refuting that rumour, but I've reached my free article limit for the month.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/25/trump-putin-and-case-missing-question/
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
Another blank subpoena completed and another dot about to be connected. Team Mueller is getting closer and closer to the center. Is that center rich and chewy or putrid and poisonous? Time will tell.
WSJ: Top Trump Organization official subpoenaed to testify in Michael Cohen probe - CNN Politics https://apple.news/AhbtNL4RIR7S9uKW1f-T2hw
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Awfully convenient incompetence, if so.PJ_Soul said:
Pure incompetence. That is hardly difficult to believe with these idiots, right?Halifax2TheMax said:
Then why the correction by the White House 2 days after being reported by Maddow? It’s not like putin on the ritz’s answer wasn’t being reported on the same day the question was asked. So the White House press office made an “honest” mistake on the most controversial question asked during that press conference?PJ_Soul said:
Moddow reported that the WH edited the PC deliberately to remove content. From what I've read about this and from the press conference that I saw, I do not think the WH purposefully omitted Putin's reply.Halifax2TheMax said:
Maddow reported that the White House omitted the putin on the ritz question and answer in their official transcript and released video. Two days after she reported this the White House updated both. How was maddow’s Reporting wrong? Further, do you think the White House press operation made a mistake or purposefully omitted putin on the ritz’s reply? Further, had no one called them out, would they have corrected it and, conversely, if they hadn’t made a mistake, why would they correct it?PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but that isn't what Maddow reported. Hey, you know I'm not going to defend Trump, lol. But I always want to stay as balanced as I can (which really isn't very hard in this era of Trump. A balanced reaction to Trump means I get to loath him and his actions 99% of the time without bias, lol).Halifax2TheMax said:
It’s still not how it went down as reported by the WaPo and the insurrection blogger. The”White House updated their transcript” after it originally omitted the Putin on the ritz question and response.PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but I don't want to be paranoid here. I think it seems more likely that the WH didn't do that than it is that they did, and from what I've seen, and considering the question under scrutiny, with the info I've seen, I'm going occams razor on this one until I have reason to feel otherwise. I really don't feel that the WaPo would have run with a right wing blogger's accusation without checking it - I give them way more credit than that, especially when it's something that actually sides with Trump. That seems way less believable to me that the alternative.Halifax2TheMax said:
But I thought I saw where the White House issued a clarification of their claims of the tape being spliced or something? I'll try to find it and post it. My point is, is that I'd believe Maddow over a right wing blogger who posted all of 5 times Maddow was wrong. I don't have the time to check the 5 but if I had to guess, 4.5 of them would be BS. Further, the issues he's called her out on are so minimal in comparison to what Team Trump Treason spews everyday. Hows that denuclerixation of NK coming along, for example? Tough on Russia, maybe? Build a wall, perhaps? Consider the source is all I'm saying. WaPo might have run with this blogger's accuation prior to checking it. Purposeful obsfucation of issues/controversies is part of the Team Trump Treason playbook.PJ_Soul said:
No. As I said, I would have posted the source article from the Washington Post but couldn't. I realized that this wasn't a good source, but the story is from WaPo so that's fine. That's why I mentioned it.Halifax2TheMax said:
Are you familiar with “legal-insurrection.com?”PJ_Soul said:For the sake of sanity and truth, no, the White House did not edit the video of the Trump/Putin press conference. I hope Rachel is ashamed of herself for that blunder.Sorry, Maddow, But the White House Did Not Edit Video to Eliminate Reuters Question to Putin
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/sorry-maddow-but-the-white-house-did-not-edit-video-to-eliminate-reuters-question-to-putin/
I would have posted the actual WaPo article refuting that rumour, but I've reached my free article limit for the month.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/25/trump-putin-and-case-missing-question/
But it’s sad that we would not be surprised by either incompetence or malice.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
This White House gets zero benefit of the doubt. They purposely used the shitty version of the feed for obvious reasons0
-
Haha, well not really. Incompetence is happening constantly in the WH I believe - it was really only a matter of time that it affected something super noticeable like this, lol. There is no way ALL the ridiculous and/or evil things coming out of the WH are deliberate. At least a few of them are going to just be the accidental result of a bunch of morons running it.oftenreading said:
Awfully convenient incompetence, if so.PJ_Soul said:
Pure incompetence. That is hardly difficult to believe with these idiots, right?Halifax2TheMax said:
Then why the correction by the White House 2 days after being reported by Maddow? It’s not like putin on the ritz’s answer wasn’t being reported on the same day the question was asked. So the White House press office made an “honest” mistake on the most controversial question asked during that press conference?PJ_Soul said:
Moddow reported that the WH edited the PC deliberately to remove content. From what I've read about this and from the press conference that I saw, I do not think the WH purposefully omitted Putin's reply.Halifax2TheMax said:
Maddow reported that the White House omitted the putin on the ritz question and answer in their official transcript and released video. Two days after she reported this the White House updated both. How was maddow’s Reporting wrong? Further, do you think the White House press operation made a mistake or purposefully omitted putin on the ritz’s reply? Further, had no one called them out, would they have corrected it and, conversely, if they hadn’t made a mistake, why would they correct it?PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but that isn't what Maddow reported. Hey, you know I'm not going to defend Trump, lol. But I always want to stay as balanced as I can (which really isn't very hard in this era of Trump. A balanced reaction to Trump means I get to loath him and his actions 99% of the time without bias, lol).Halifax2TheMax said:
It’s still not how it went down as reported by the WaPo and the insurrection blogger. The”White House updated their transcript” after it originally omitted the Putin on the ritz question and response.PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but I don't want to be paranoid here. I think it seems more likely that the WH didn't do that than it is that they did, and from what I've seen, and considering the question under scrutiny, with the info I've seen, I'm going occams razor on this one until I have reason to feel otherwise. I really don't feel that the WaPo would have run with a right wing blogger's accusation without checking it - I give them way more credit than that, especially when it's something that actually sides with Trump. That seems way less believable to me that the alternative.Halifax2TheMax said:
But I thought I saw where the White House issued a clarification of their claims of the tape being spliced or something? I'll try to find it and post it. My point is, is that I'd believe Maddow over a right wing blogger who posted all of 5 times Maddow was wrong. I don't have the time to check the 5 but if I had to guess, 4.5 of them would be BS. Further, the issues he's called her out on are so minimal in comparison to what Team Trump Treason spews everyday. Hows that denuclerixation of NK coming along, for example? Tough on Russia, maybe? Build a wall, perhaps? Consider the source is all I'm saying. WaPo might have run with this blogger's accuation prior to checking it. Purposeful obsfucation of issues/controversies is part of the Team Trump Treason playbook.PJ_Soul said:
No. As I said, I would have posted the source article from the Washington Post but couldn't. I realized that this wasn't a good source, but the story is from WaPo so that's fine. That's why I mentioned it.Halifax2TheMax said:
Are you familiar with “legal-insurrection.com?”PJ_Soul said:For the sake of sanity and truth, no, the White House did not edit the video of the Trump/Putin press conference. I hope Rachel is ashamed of herself for that blunder.Sorry, Maddow, But the White House Did Not Edit Video to Eliminate Reuters Question to Putin
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/sorry-maddow-but-the-white-house-did-not-edit-video-to-eliminate-reuters-question-to-putin/
I would have posted the actual WaPo article refuting that rumour, but I've reached my free article limit for the month.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/25/trump-putin-and-case-missing-question/
But it’s sad that we would not be surprised by either incompetence or malice.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Yeah, no, I’m not buying it.PJ_Soul said:
Haha, well not really. Incompetence is happening constantly in the WH I believe - it was really only a matter of time that it affected something super noticeable like this, lol. There is no way ALL the ridiculous and/or evil things coming out of the WH are deliberate. At least a few of them are going to just be the accidental result of a bunch of morons running it.oftenreading said:
Awfully convenient incompetence, if so.PJ_Soul said:
Pure incompetence. That is hardly difficult to believe with these idiots, right?Halifax2TheMax said:
Then why the correction by the White House 2 days after being reported by Maddow? It’s not like putin on the ritz’s answer wasn’t being reported on the same day the question was asked. So the White House press office made an “honest” mistake on the most controversial question asked during that press conference?PJ_Soul said:
Moddow reported that the WH edited the PC deliberately to remove content. From what I've read about this and from the press conference that I saw, I do not think the WH purposefully omitted Putin's reply.Halifax2TheMax said:
Maddow reported that the White House omitted the putin on the ritz question and answer in their official transcript and released video. Two days after she reported this the White House updated both. How was maddow’s Reporting wrong? Further, do you think the White House press operation made a mistake or purposefully omitted putin on the ritz’s reply? Further, had no one called them out, would they have corrected it and, conversely, if they hadn’t made a mistake, why would they correct it?PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but that isn't what Maddow reported. Hey, you know I'm not going to defend Trump, lol. But I always want to stay as balanced as I can (which really isn't very hard in this era of Trump. A balanced reaction to Trump means I get to loath him and his actions 99% of the time without bias, lol).Halifax2TheMax said:
It’s still not how it went down as reported by the WaPo and the insurrection blogger. The”White House updated their transcript” after it originally omitted the Putin on the ritz question and response.PJ_Soul said:
Fine, but I don't want to be paranoid here. I think it seems more likely that the WH didn't do that than it is that they did, and from what I've seen, and considering the question under scrutiny, with the info I've seen, I'm going occams razor on this one until I have reason to feel otherwise. I really don't feel that the WaPo would have run with a right wing blogger's accusation without checking it - I give them way more credit than that, especially when it's something that actually sides with Trump. That seems way less believable to me that the alternative.Halifax2TheMax said:
But I thought I saw where the White House issued a clarification of their claims of the tape being spliced or something? I'll try to find it and post it. My point is, is that I'd believe Maddow over a right wing blogger who posted all of 5 times Maddow was wrong. I don't have the time to check the 5 but if I had to guess, 4.5 of them would be BS. Further, the issues he's called her out on are so minimal in comparison to what Team Trump Treason spews everyday. Hows that denuclerixation of NK coming along, for example? Tough on Russia, maybe? Build a wall, perhaps? Consider the source is all I'm saying. WaPo might have run with this blogger's accuation prior to checking it. Purposeful obsfucation of issues/controversies is part of the Team Trump Treason playbook.PJ_Soul said:
No. As I said, I would have posted the source article from the Washington Post but couldn't. I realized that this wasn't a good source, but the story is from WaPo so that's fine. That's why I mentioned it.Halifax2TheMax said:
Are you familiar with “legal-insurrection.com?”PJ_Soul said:For the sake of sanity and truth, no, the White House did not edit the video of the Trump/Putin press conference. I hope Rachel is ashamed of herself for that blunder.Sorry, Maddow, But the White House Did Not Edit Video to Eliminate Reuters Question to Putin
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/sorry-maddow-but-the-white-house-did-not-edit-video-to-eliminate-reuters-question-to-putin/
I would have posted the actual WaPo article refuting that rumour, but I've reached my free article limit for the month.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jul/25/trump-putin-and-case-missing-question/
But it’s sad that we would not be surprised by either incompetence or malice.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
But the thing is, why in the fuck would they do that deliberately?? Given all the shit that went down at the press conference, why in the world would they specifically bother to very badly attempt to edit that one part like that? I mean, everyone already knows Putin was pro-Trump. They actually erected billboards around Russia about it after he won, lol. It doesn't really make much sense, does it? Especially done in a way that is so easy to see? They're fucking incompetent, but not necessarily THAT incompetent....
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help