• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fascism also takes a village...of bootlicks.

Fair enough, but it's still a shame that you think the Rolling Stone would invent this more than you think Trump had a lot of ethically fluid people covering his ass.
Don't misunderstand. I don't doubt the possibility that the story could be true. Trump has dirty laundry I am sure. Is there a politician without any? I doubt it.

Rolling Stone has a history of running false stories. They are using an unnamed source. I am not gonna assume their article is accurate without a named credible source.
 
Don't misunderstand. I don't doubt the possibility that the story could be true. Trump has dirty laundry I am sure. Is there a politician without any? I doubt it.

Rolling Stone has a history of running false stories. They are using an unnamed source. I am not gonna assume their article is accurate without a named credible source.

They do NOT have a history of running false stories. At least not nearly in the sense of the deliberate propaganda that some media outlets do. Everybody makes mistakes occasionally.

They have broken some major stories and have some award winning journalists. In terms of credibility, they have plenty. Trump, and his followers, though, are not so credible and there's the differences. More lies have been uttered in Trump's defense than in persecution of him, so the idea of demanding impeccable truth before you believe this story makes me wonder who IS trustworthy in your opinion.
 
They do NOT have a history of running false stories. At least not nearly in the sense of the deliberate propaganda that some media outlets do. Everybody makes mistakes occasionally.

They have broken some major stories and have some award winning journalists. In terms of credibility, they have plenty. Trump, and his followers, though, are not so credible and there's the differences. More lies have been uttered in Trump's defense than in persecution of him, so the idea of demanding impeccable truth before you believe this story makes me wonder who IS trustworthy in your opinion.
Exhibit A:


Rolling Stone was forced to issue an update to its viral story about Oklahoma hospitals being overwhelmed by patients who overdosed on the drug ivermectin after the doctor it cited was contradicted by the hospitals he referenced.
 
Exhibit A:

So, a doctor who practices in the area issues a false statement to a Rolling Stone reporter and that is the Rolling Stone's "history of false stories"? If that "evidence" is all you've got, you've got nothing. Should I start providing links to all of the cases of Trump supporters ACTUALLY, KNOWINGLY lying, cheating and breaking the law in his service?

Here's one:


Here's another:


And another:


I could go on and on. But, oh my god, an exaggeration from a seemingly credible source, followed by an "update" disqualifies the Rolling Stone utterly, but countless cases of perjury, deceit and other crimes in Trump's name leave him squeaky clean? Forgive me if I use the phrase "Bullshit". You try to play the conservative with conscience but you're no more willing to accept the truth than any other sycophant.

Trump is ethically fluid and encourages such moral decay from those around him. It has become an openly raw power grab without the slightest desire to appear legitimate. How the hell are you oblivious to that?
 
So, a doctor who practices in the area issues a false statement to a Rolling Stone reporter and that is the Rolling Stone's "history of false stories"? If that "evidence" is all you've got, you've got nothing. Should I start providing links to all of the cases of Trump supporters ACTUALLY, KNOWINGLY lying, cheating and breaking the law in his service?

Here's one:


Here's another:


And another:


I could go on and on. But, oh my god, an exaggeration from a seemingly credible source, followed by an "update" disqualifies the Rolling Stone utterly, but countless cases of perjury, deceit and other crimes in Trump's name leave him squeaky clean? Forgive me if I use the phrase "Bullshit". You try to play the conservative with conscience but you're no more willing to accept the truth than any other sycophant.

Trump is ethically fluid and encourages such moral decay from those around him. It has become an openly raw power grab without the slightest desire to appear legitimate. How the hell are you oblivious to that?
I'm not offering any of them as a source as the OP is. I offered the latest major screw-up by the rolling stone but certainly not the only one or the most egregious one.

That award goes to this one:
 
I'm not offering any of them as a source as the OP is. I offered the latest major screw-up by the rolling stone but certainly not the only one or the most egregious one.

That award goes to this one:

Yes, this is legitimate libel on their part. Now, apply your lofty truth standard to the biggest demagogue in American politics and his cult. Then this story won't seem so far fetched.
 
Back
Top Bottom