Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador - Polidicks

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52236217]How are you people saying Trump admitted anything? His Tweets were just confirming what everyone already knew, he talked about things he has every right too, he never said "oooh Im guilty I committed treason, I told classified info to the russians, impeach me!"[/QUOTE] Did you say that if this was confirmed you'd admit you were wrong? Jesus Christ at this point you guys are just shitting up the thread. Has nobody but me, BDA, and da space core watched the McMaster video?

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52236217]The White House has been saying it, and Trump confirmed it himself.[/QUOTE] "Man known to tell lies claims to tell the truth, nothing to see here, move on"

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;52236174]Ah, the 'if the news doesn't fit my worldviews or what the orange idiot/the White House tells me, it's all biased or fake' defense. Breitbart and Fox would certainly never publish such things because they would at once suffer severe backlash from the brainless idiots who take both rags as the gospel truth. So which source(s) will suffice before you actually believe the truth for what it is? Or will it be 'a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth puts its shoes on' once again?[/QUOTE] No, I'd gladly agree with said news if it wasn't just "official says this" and "official says that" from a heavily biased news source that was backed from BuzzFeed of all places. That doesn't exactly scream truth to me. Breitbart and Fox wouldn't publish a story on it because they understand how the information Trump leaked was given to the other world superpower fighting ISIS and how it honestly sounds like it was common knowledge. The only sources I'll believe are sources that include names and aren't posted by news sources with frequently skewed stories. [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52236172]how the fuck are you still talking about how the washington post is biased fake news when [I]trump himself fucking confirmed the story[/I] like holy shit is the trump defense news letter you're copy pasting this response from just ten hours behind or something and since when do you know exactly what confidential information was leaked?[/QUOTE] If you read the article and many others like it you'll read that the information in question was something relating to terrorists using hidden explosive devices in electronics. [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52236173]I like how you go to the opinions section but conveniently used a screenshot where its obscured by the bar at the top. Also, how do you know the exact information? Pretty sure that wasn't revealed.[/QUOTE] If I didn't show said opinion bar I couldn't get the third story in. It still proves the writers of the Washington Post are biased and create biased news. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Didn't read any of the source articles or thread" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Pootis Mann;52236160]Ah, another thread talking about how Trump "truly messed up" and is finally going to be impeached, which I really don't understand considering you'd probably hate Mike Pence even more. Saying the Washington Post is a fair, unbiased news source is biased news in itself. If you take a look, 90% of the articles they write about are yet another negative criticism of some hyperinflated action of Trumps. [MASSIVE IMAGE] The funny thing is that this "SUPER CLASSIFIED INFORMATION" is him talking about how terrorists might use bombs disguised as technology. Just because I put a "super rare epic" sticker on an apple doesn't make it super rare and epic - it's still just an apple.[/QUOTE] Can we please get something straight. Bias != credibility. Bias is which side you favour, whereas credibility is whether or not things you report tend to be accurate. A credible, largely unbiased news agency like Reuters trades on the fact that it reports facts and does so accurately. They have very strict guidelines on avoiding any biased language and sell accurate and true information. Fucking this up tends to be grounds for firing, or at issuing a final warning to the journalist(s) responsible. Anonymous sources will be confirmed by senior editors who's entire career is worth far more than any single story. If they report something, you can bank on it being accurate. A (mildly) biased, credible news source like the Washington Post will favour one side in editorials and punditry but their actual reporting will be consistently accurate, unverified information will be clearly marked and any mistakes will be corrected. A biased organisation without credibility, e.g. fox news, will not only favour one side in their editorials and story selection, they will actively [url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/26/fox-news-nils-bildt-swedish-defence-advisor-unknown-to-countrys-military-officials]invent[/url] sources and lie to support their viewpoint when necessary. Please stop using bias as an excuse for dismissing credibility.

I'd be laughing if this wasn't so fucking sad How do you people even lie to yourselves like this

You dont even need the Washington post or any news stories at this point. All of you, read trumps recent tweets and todays McMaster address (which is only 15 minutes long) Its NOT hard

[QUOTE=Pootis Mann;52236236][B]Breitbart and Fox[/B] wouldn't publish a story on it because they understand how the information Trump leaked was given to the other world superpower fighting ISIS and how it honestly sounds like it was common knowledge. The only sources I'll believe are sources that include names and [B]aren't posted by news sources with frequently skewed stories.[/B] [/QUOTE] ???

[QUOTE=Kljunas;52235114]It's amazing how White House officials make these carefully worded statements then Trump consistently comes out and undermines them by being an idiot. Managing this PR nightmare has to be the most stressful job in the world.[/QUOTE] Either that or they're in full 'Well, I did my best and what I'm paid for. The rest can't be helped anyway.' mode by now.

[QUOTE=Pootis Mann;52236236]No, I'd gladly agree with said news if it wasn't just "official says this" and "official says that" from a heavily biased news source that was backed from BuzzFeed of all places. That doesn't exactly scream truth to me. Breitbart and Fox wouldn't publish a story on it because they understand how the information Trump leaked was given to the other world superpower fighting ISIS and how it honestly sounds like it was common knowledge. The only sources I'll believe are sources that include names and aren't posted by news sources with frequently skewed stories. [/QUOTE] what news organizations would you trust

I don't get how people can flat out just ignore what is being said right in front of them. Like legit I understand bias, Washington Post hands down is biased, just like many other news sources - but as someone said above they're still credible. You can't just hand pick news to support your cause, it doesn't work that way.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52236278]what news organizations would you trust[/QUOTE] Clearly Breitbart and Fox?

So, we can't trust Trump and the WH because they have skewed things before, but we can trust WaPo because they haven't [B]EVER[/B] skewed [B]ANYTHING[/B] before, right? The hypocrisy is comical.

[QUOTE=Pootis Mann;52236236]The only sources I'll believe are sources that include names and aren't posted by news sources with frequently skewed stories.[/QUOTE] It's gotta be frustrating to work in political journalism to see this statement constantly, consider it took a little over 30 years to finally find out who Deep Throat was, and that wasn't until the guy died and the people who worked at the Washington Post [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/01/AR2005060102124_pf.html]confrimed the story with the family's attorney[/url].

[QUOTE=Revenge282;52236296]Clearly Breitbart and Fox?[/QUOTE] yeah but i want him to say it

[QUOTE=Nookyava;52236286] You can't just hand pick news to support your cause, it doesn't work that way.[/QUOTE] If only more people knew that.

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52236298]So, we can't trust Trump and the WH because they have skewed things before, but we can trust WaPo because they haven't [B]EVER[/B] skewed [B]ANYTHING[/B] before, right? The hypocrisy is comical.[/QUOTE] Literally apply this view to any other situation where someone is being accused of something, and you will (hopefully, god please do) see how absurd it is.

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52236298]So, we can't trust Trump and the WH because they have skewed things before, but we can trust WaPo because they haven't [B]EVER[/B] skewed [B]ANYTHING[/B] before, right? The hypocrisy is comical.[/QUOTE] more news agencies than just the washington post have reported it

"biased" the administration sent out McMasters to deny this happened only for Trump to admit it a few hours later on Twitter, maybe it's not about being a liberal or a conservative, maybe people just want them to stop lying, oh geez is that the liberal agenda clockwork running to wish someone would stop fucking around so much and start being a competent government oh man how dare we

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52236298]So, we can't trust Trump and the WH because they have skewed things before, but we can trust WaPo because they haven't [B]EVER[/B] skewed [B]ANYTHING[/B] before, right? The hypocrisy is comical.[/QUOTE] SKEWED? No, they have outright [B]LIED.[/B] They died on a hill over inauguration crowds, a provable lie, and you're still acting like they just "Skew"?

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52236298]So, we can't trust Trump and the WH because they have skewed things before, but we can trust WaPo because they haven't [B]EVER[/B] skewed [B]ANYTHING[/B] before, right? The hypocrisy is comical.[/QUOTE] context buddy, turns out they lied about not giving details then admitted it and WaPo was right all along woop woop

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52236298]So, we can't trust Trump and the WH because they have skewed things before, but we can trust WaPo because they haven't [B]EVER[/B] skewed [B]ANYTHING[/B] before, right? The hypocrisy is comical.[/QUOTE] NPR, BBC, AP, Reuters all in a conspiracy to fabricate something against the president? It might make sense if he didn't go on to confirm it anyway.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52236322]"biased" the administration sent out McMasters to deny this happened only for Trump to admit it a few hours later on Twitter, maybe it's not about being a liberal or a conservative, maybe people just want them to stop lying, oh geez is that the liberal agenda clockwork running to wish someone would stop fucking around so much and start being a competent government oh man how dare we[/QUOTE] clearly wanting an honest system means we're stupid liberals not more interested in having a world that isn't at risk of falling apart I'm confused about what people who are supporting Trump even want, do you really want the world to start going to war because this guy doesn't know when to shut the fuck up, or how to do his fucking job?

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52236322]"biased" the administration sent out McMasters to deny this happened only for Trump to admit it a few hours later on Twitter, maybe it's not about being a liberal or a conservative, maybe people just want them to stop lying, oh geez is that the liberal agenda clockwork running to wish someone would stop fucking around so much and start being a competent government oh man how dare we[/QUOTE] Trump didn't admit anything [QUOTE]maybe people just want them to stop lying[/QUOTE] [I]irony[/I]

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52236298]So, we can't trust Trump and the WH because they have skewed things before, but we can trust WaPo because they haven't [B]EVER[/B] skewed [B]ANYTHING[/B] before, right? The hypocrisy is comical.[/QUOTE] Trump goes far, FAR beyond "skewing" on a [I]weekly basis[/I].

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52236350]Trump didn't admit anything [I]irony[/I][/QUOTE] [QUOTE] I wanted to share with Russia which I have the absolute right to do[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=-nesto-;52236350][I]irony[/I][/QUOTE] what even

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52236350]Trump didn't admit anything [I]irony[/I][/QUOTE] I find it hard to take you seriously. You're showcasing the textbook definition of confirmation bias.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52236208]what information do [I]you[/I] think he's talking about? You're trying to read between the lines to find shit that doesn't exist. Wow, they talked about ISIS and airlines =/= they 100% talked about classified information[/QUOTE] what i don't understand about all this is [I]why[/I] you want so badly to believe trump is infallible like.... he fucked up. why is it impossible to accept it? regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum?

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52236359]what even[/QUOTE] So talking to Russia is an impeachable offence? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling, third ban in a week." - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52236371]So talking to Russia is an impeachable offence?[/QUOTE] Have you not read the article or any of the posts? C'mon man.

[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52236371]So talking to Russia is an impeachable offence?[/QUOTE] What are you saying, he said [I]irony[/I] to not wanting people to lie about stuff and the only people that lied here was the trump administration so your post and his are just unclear and confusing