Because Trump 2.0

[Murph]

Extreme lawless left wing judges legislating from the bench and shutting down federal buy out, and other Trump executive orders, all are Clinton, Obama, Biden appointees naturally.  The Rs should never have allowed those judges to go through, especially since the Dems promised (HAHAHAHAHA!) to allow Trumps Cabinet picks to go through fast (they lied as usual, why do Rs fall for that EVERY.SINGLE.TIME), so now we are suffering under left wing "judges" who ignore the law to protect the left.  

[NickM]

1 hour ago, Ivanhoe said:

#winning

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/usaid-and-the-media-in-a-time-of-monsters.php

Bolding mine.

Isn't government-funded news what is ordinarily called "propaganda?"

Or is this one of those things, "It's not propaganda when we do it."

The sniveling git who wrote the story also works for the New Yorker and the Atlantic? The fact that he's part of 'that' club as well as his questionable adherence to 'facts'  over narrative, tells me all I need to know.

Edited February 6 by NickM

[Mr King]

The left keeps referencing the DOGE workers age. I was under the impression the left celebrated political activity and engagement by young people? Hell they floated the idea of giving 16year olds the right to vote, and let toddlers decide their gender. I am missing the disconnect here.

[Ivanhoe]

[Skywalkre]

3 hours ago, bojan said:

And why should anyone trust a word of that highly overpaid clown?

Why is anyone even running with the story that he was paid in the first place?  There's no credible source for the story.  Despite folks on here repeatedly being shown the X posts they cling to are fake, have no merit, etc. folks still just run with whatever they see that matches what they want to believe.

[Mr King]

39 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Why is anyone even running with the story that he was paid in the first place?  There's no credible source for the story.  Despite folks on here repeatedly being shown the X posts they cling to are fake, have no merit, etc. folks still just run with whatever they see that matches what they want to believe.

"credible sources"

That's adorable

 

 

 

[Mr King]

Quote

CIA today is the biggest funder of journalism around the world, The biggest funder is through "USAID" The US funds journalism in every country in world ,thousands of journalists around world. In 2016 President Obama changed law Smith-Mundt to allow Propagandization. - RFK Jr

https://x.com/FLAHUSTLA/status/1887381296080355428

Edited February 6 by Mr King

[Ssnake]

5 hours ago, bojan said:

And why should anyone trust a word of that highly overpaid clown?

What makes you think he is overpaid, other than that you wouldn't pay him?

[bojan]

42 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

What makes you think he is overpaid, other than that you wouldn't pay him?

Because I think that most movie actors in general, and Hollywood actors in particular are highly overpaid compared to other people that are at least* equally important in creating movies. And every single one offering personal opinion about things that are not movies has high chance of being clown.

*If not even more - look at scenarist pay in particular as a contrast to actor one.

[Skywalkre]

1 hour ago, Mr King said:

"credible sources"

That's adorable

 

 

 

Do you know what 'source' even means?  Nothing in your reply supports the idea that Stiller was paid.

[Mr King]

2 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Do you know what 'source' even means?  Nothing in your reply supports the idea that Stiller was paid.

Nothing in your reply supports that he wasn't other than your claim of unreliable sources.

[Skywalkre]

You all are running with the claim.  The onus is on you to back it up.  It's not that there are unreliable sources... there are none to begin with.

[Mr King]

1 minute ago, Skywalkre said:

You all are running with the claim.  The onus is on you to back it up.  It's not that there are unreliable sources... there are none to begin with.

You made a claim there are "no credible sources". The onus on you to back it up.

[Skywalkre]

4 minutes ago, Mr King said:

You made a claim there are "no credible sources". The onus on you to back it up.

So what proof do you have besides a fake E! News story?  (Note - the fact that vid is fake means it's not true and thus is there is no source.)

Is it kept locked up in your super secret folder with all those vids of Haitians eating pets in OH?

[R011]

59 minutes ago, bojan said:

Because I think that most movie actors in general, and Hollywood actors in particular are highly overpaid compared to other people that are at least* equally important in creating movies. And every single one offering personal opinion about things that are not movies has high chance of being clown.

*If not even more - look at scenarist pay in particular as a contrast to actor one.

Few, if any, of those other equally important people  matter to the box office.  The star does.  That's why they get paid big bucks.  Why anyone should value their opinions over anyone else is another matter.  In Stiller's case, it seems he put his money where his mouth was, though.

[R011]

10 minutes ago, Mr King said:

You made a claim there are "no credible sources". The onus on you to back it up.

I should think Stiller himself is a credible source on Stiller, unless you have reason to believe the tweet was fake or he's lying.

[Mr King]

5 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

So what proof do you have besides a fake E! News story?  (Note - the fact that vid is fake means it's not true and thus is there is no source.)

Is it kept locked up in your super secret folder with all those vids of Haitians eating pets in OH?

lmao you're still salty you couldn't prove me wrong about those pics. I wonder who is paying for the lead stories fact check site that "fact checked" this story.

[Skywalkre]

1 minute ago, Mr King said:

lmao you're still salty you couldn't prove me wrong about those pics. I wonder who is paying for the lead stories fact check site that "fact checked" this story.

Not salty, there wasn't a point to continue.  You moved the goalposts when your original point was shot down (like you're doing here... shocking).

Now you're just defaulting to someone was paid off on the fact check.  I'd ask for a source on that but we've seen how hard it is to get that out of you.

Hard to engage with someone honestly when they're living in a fantasy land...

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Because I think that most movie actors in general, and Hollywood actors in particular are highly overpaid compared to other people that are at least* equally important in creating movies.

... look at scenarist pay in particular as a contrast to actor one.

When was the last time you chose between two unknown films to watch the one from a screen writer's name of trust?

Actors aren't paid top dollars because they are more important when making a film. They are paid top dollars because of their unique capability to sell it to the audience. Their salary is a marketing expense. Of all the people in this forum you should understand this.

[Mr King]

1 minute ago, Skywalkre said:

Not salty, there wasn't a point to continue.  You moved the goalposts when your original point was shot down (like you're doing here... shocking).

Now you're just defaulting to someone was paid off on the fact check.  I'd ask for a source on that but we've seen how hard it is to get that out of you.

Hard to engage with someone honestly when they're living in a fantasy land...

I never moved any goal post on your precious Hatians, you just accused me of that like a bitch because you couldnt prove me wrong and I wouldnt upload potentially illegal videos of animal torture. Please feel free to rehash that conversation and quote me where I moved the goal posts. Your claim is this story is fake, your source is a "fact check" site. So your implying they ARE a credible source unlike the source claiming Stiller got paid. I just want to know who is paying their bills, or was. You think they took any government money? If they did does that still make them a reliable source on this?

[R011]

Readers comments on Twitter note the E!News video making the claim was fake and  the original source was a Russian propaganda site.

There seems to be enough scandal in the USAID issue that we don't need to make stuff up or defame innocent people.

[Mr King]

Just now, R011 said:

Readers comments on Twitter note the E!News video making the claim was fake and  the original source was a Russian propaganda site.

There seems to be enough scandal in the USAID issue that we don't need to make stuff up or defame innocent people.

And the source for those claims is the Factcheck site.

Edited February 7 by Mr King

[DKTanker]

9 minutes ago, R011 said:

I should think Stiller himself is a credible source on Stiller, unless you have reason to believe the tweet was fake or he's lying.

There is also this to consider, money is fungible and no doubt he doesn't manage his own money.  He likely has a manager and an accountant who manage his funds.  It is conceivable that his company did indeed receive USAID funds and he simply didn't know about it.  As money is fungible it is thus also conceivable that USAID did assist in funding his trip to Ukraine.  Moreover, apparently USAID was using all manner of cutouts to wash the funds so that the origin of funds and destination weren't always very obvious. 

[R011]

Just now, Mr King said:

And the source for those claims is the Factcheck site.

So you say.  Prove them wrong.  You could find the original source.

[R011]

Just now, DKTanker said:

There is also this to consider, money is fungible and no doubt he doesn't manage his own money.  He likely has a manager and an accountant who manage his funds.  It is conceivable that his company did indeed receive USAID funds and he simply didn't know about it.  As money is fungible it is thus also conceivable that USAID did assist in funding his trip to Ukraine.  Moreover, apparently USAID was using all manner of cutouts to wash the funds so that the origin of funds and destination weren't always very obvious. 

Possible, but we don't yet have a credible source as we do for, say, USAID money going to a BBC charity.  It's a clear denial that he was personally paid $4 million for the photo op.