incognito_man Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said: CNN unsubstantiated claims that come out as someone who is an a rumored pick VP of RFK (who will likely take votes away from CNNs preferred candidate ) are accepted “news” ? Let’s put out a Fox News opinion piece as fact too lol I don't think you know what "unsubstantiated" means lol (Or opinion) Edited March 13 by incognito_man 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltarich87 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 This kind of behavior is VERY hard to believe from *checks notes* Aaron Rodgers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Checks Jets board....quiet as a church mouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Striker Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 (edited) It's funny that folks on the right think CNN is some far left (or even left leaning) news organization when they have basically tanked their network in their desperate attempts to garner views from an audience that still doesn't tune in despite them trying to create some sort of artificial centrism. It's also funny that folks believe that Tapper would recklessly report something without some trust in his sources. Of all those working at CNN, he's been pretty damn consistent with his fact checking. ...also, is it really that much of a stretch that Mr. 9/11, COVID vaccine, chemtrail, UFO, Epstein conspiracy guy would also buy into the Sandy Hook conspiracies? Or are his various teammates just lying about that too because...? Edited March 13 by Striker 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReasonablySober Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 My god. OF COURSE Rodgers is a Sandy Hook truther. Nothing could possibly be easier to believe. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Striker Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 33 minutes ago, incognito_man said: I don't think you know what "unsubstantiated" means lol "I don't like it and I see CNN so it must be false" 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 1 minute ago, Striker said: "I don't like it and I see CNN so it must be false" It was unfortunately not a surprising response. I did actually look up afterwards because I thought CNN had a reputation as being very neutral (which I confirmed). It's not my preferred source, but certainly reputable. But the center looks "far left" to the far right unfortunately. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 40 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said: CNN unsubstantiated claims that come out as someone who is an a rumored pick VP of RFK (who will likely take votes away from CNNs preferred candidate ) are accepted “news” ? Let’s put out a Fox News opinion piece as fact too lol Actually the polling on RFK supporters goes the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Striker Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Just now, incognito_man said: It was unfortunately not a surprising response. I did actually look up afterwards because I thought CNN had a reputation as being very neutral (which I confirmed). It's not my preferred source, but certainly reputable. But the center looks "far left" to the far right unfortunately. Folks confuse the opinion shows and the newsrooms too often. The NYT is a great example of this. Their editorial board and opinion pieces are a both sidesing dumpster fire right now. Their newsroom is still pretty good. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Striker Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 32 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said: CNN unsubstantiated claims that come out as someone who is an a rumored pick VP of RFK (who will likely take votes away from CNNs preferred candidate) are accepted “news” ? Let’s put out a Fox News opinion piece as fact too lol My general annoyance at the MSM's horse race BS aside, RFK is far more likely to take libertarian leaning voters away from Trump than voters away from Biden. But I'd bet most RFK voters would be people who would have not voted or would have been 2020 Jorgenson or Stein voters. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 1 minute ago, Striker said: Folks confuse the opinion shows and the newsrooms too often. The NYT is a great example of this. Their editorial board and opinion pieces are a both sidesing dumpster fire right now. Their newsroom is still pretty good. Yep. I never consume opinion pieces. Or VERY rarely. So I never have my thumb on the pulse of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Also, if this wasn't true, they'd get their PANTS sued off lol And Aaron would vehemently deny it from the outset. Sometimes I wonder what world I'm living in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 McIntyre - big NYJ fan - has evolved from: "Dont want the guy and his darkness retreats - to - Super Bowl here we come - to - we're cursed" Jason McIntyre - Wonder if Aaron Rodgers is actively trying to get out of the Jets and by joining forces with RFK this would expedite the process … because stuff like this would come out. Rodgers wants out, let him go, Jets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 It's funny how the validity of a news organization comes from the leaning of the one speaking about them. You want to see an interesting conversation about people from the inside, google the Tucker Carlson and Chris Cuomo sit down. Two people who couldn't be more diametrically opposed. I couldn't stop listening to it. That conversation is what the country needs more of, but we're too far gone for that, sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 1 hour ago, incognito_man said: The first of which debunks his claim and correctly points out there's been exactly one case of a candidate receiving protection at that point in the campaign cycle since 1980. Thanks for proving my point. Your point was Biden didn't have anything to do with it. Your point was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts