Who does—and doesn’t—support sending U.S. troops to Ukraine

No, there have not been "fake stories" done by these outlets. Bet you can't even show us one.

 

Good lord that's the easiest "challenge" I've had on this forum.

‘Remember, it’s illegal to possess’ WikiLeaks Clinton emails, but ‘it’s different for the media,’ says CNN’s Chris Cuomo

But I don't want to sidetrack this thread on CNN/MSNBC foibles, although it sounds fun. If you want to start a thread where you valiantly defend those two networks journalistic integrity please do so. Should be a lot of laughs.

 

Well, isn't that the whole thing then? You (or I) are going to agree with whoever agrees with me. I read the Economist and the Wall Street Journal and accept whatever they both agree on. Most of Q-Anon's followers follow the same procedure with Trump's Truth and Joe Rogan, who's right?

 

Hope you're right. But I'm not too sure about that. Especially since they've spent the last year talking about white rage and that "white supremacists" (understood to mean any white people who don't parrot the party line) are the worst problem the country has.

 

The key is “a good reason” to go to war.

But if we are attacked and we must legitimately defend ourselves, I have confidence that the military will get all the volunteers it can handle.

 

Russia provides nothing to us besides gas and oil, of which we have plenty. Russia and China have been buddy buddy for the past year because they both want to assimilate other countries. Ukraine initially applied to become part of NATO, but those plans were scrapped following a presidential election. Membership resumed only after Putin annexed Crimea, so didn't offer any other options for Ukraine.

 

Well if The Economist and The Wall Street Journal both agree that determining the validity of news stories is between the establishment and Q-Anon followers, you are badly served.

Q-Anon followers? Is there anyone on this forum who is a Q-Anon Follower?

 

I don't think we have any, but I was just using them as an illustrative example.

I believe I could have made my point much better before. How do you (or I or anyone) know that "our own" research is any better than the services you are dismissing?

 

What IS a q-anon follower anyway? How do you know if you've seen one?

 

That's something I've struggled with and what I use is the track record. How often do their stories and sources turn out to be bogus and how often do they get a story right? If you've spent much of the time basing your political ideas and decisions on news stories that turned out to be bogus, you need new sources.

 

They have cloven hooves and they drown if thrown in water.

It's all very scientific and technical.

 

Surely you can do better than Chris Cuomo offering a dumb opinion on a legal matter.

 

Sure I can do a lot better. I've a lot of choices. The weird thing was that you challenged me for just ONE. You really thought they had a perfect record.

 

If you had something better, i.e. an actual fake story from CNN or MSNBC, you would have posted it.

 

Waiting on you to start your thread.

 

If one knows some history and pays attention to information from non news sources like immigrants with family in Ukraine (not Twitter LOL) it’s not hard to figure out this is not a dichotomous situation with one white hat and one black hat. Not to say one side isn’t far worse than the other, but both sides are using ridiculous propaganda and US news sources (from both tribes) are reporting propaganda as if it’s true.