On the Epstein issue, Trump's credibility is very low for me, so if it's him vs. the WSJ, I'm going with the WSJ.
Well...that's kind of silly.
Trump has shit the bed, but the WSJ has shit the bed a lot more frequently and consistently. I've been very disappointed in Trump on this issue, but that doesn't mean I'm trusting the WSJ.
If you have no credibility on anything else, sorry, no, you don't get credibility just because you're against someone who also has a credibility problem.
I'm not giving them credibility just because Trump has none.
The reason they win the credibility battle is because they at least cited something to back up their claim. Regardless of what that something is, it is more credible than "Trust me bro. This shit's fake and I can prove it, but I'm too busy doing other stuff. Besides, you're a loser and I don't want your support if you even care about this."
I don't believe it because the WSJ says it. I find it somewhat believable because it's consistent with all the other facts, namely Trump sperging out like a madman.
As for Deep State mouthpiece, yes, but Trump has done everything for the Deep State since May. Why?
Trump has shit the bed, but the WSJ has shit the bed a lot more frequently and consistently. I've been very disappointed in Trump on this issue, but that doesn't mean I'm trusting the WSJ.
Both the WSJ and Trump are not trustworthy.
In the Epstein case, Trump is demonstrably lying by the mere fact of the law of non-contradiction (hoax, written by Obama, don't exist). Likelihood of Trump being right: 0.
In the Epstein case, the WSJ is not (yet) demonstrably lying, but its track record is also not great. Likelihood of WSJ being right: somewhere close to 0, but not 0 itself.
But why give any credence to an organization you say has a near zero likelihood of being correct?
If someone has a 1% track record of being honest, and they tell me something...I'm going to bet the other way. Even if the other guy is also being squirrelly. Say what you want about Trump on this, he's still got a better record overall, and was never the most articulate, or honest on some of the details.
There's just no way I'm taking WSJ and anonymous sources as anything of value, when they did this exact same bullshit for a decade.
Well...that's kind of silly.
Trump has shit the bed, but the WSJ has shit the bed a lot more frequently and consistently. I've been very disappointed in Trump on this issue, but that doesn't mean I'm trusting the WSJ.
Not on this particular topic.
On all topics.
If you have no credibility on anything else, sorry, no, you don't get credibility just because you're against someone who also has a credibility problem.
Not how it works.
I'm not giving them credibility just because Trump has none.
The reason they win the credibility battle is because they at least cited something to back up their claim. Regardless of what that something is, it is more credible than "Trust me bro. This shit's fake and I can prove it, but I'm too busy doing other stuff. Besides, you're a loser and I don't want your support if you even care about this."
What, what's their citation?
No, it's exactly "Trust me, bro."
Emply Gell Mann Amnesia Effect to your benefit, for once in your life.
WSJ is a media mouthpiece for the Deep State, and nothing they put out is to believed.
NOTHING
I don't believe it because the WSJ says it. I find it somewhat believable because it's consistent with all the other facts, namely Trump sperging out like a madman.
As for Deep State mouthpiece, yes, but Trump has done everything for the Deep State since May. Why?
Both the WSJ and Trump are not trustworthy.
In the Epstein case, Trump is demonstrably lying by the mere fact of the law of non-contradiction (hoax, written by Obama, don't exist). Likelihood of Trump being right: 0.
In the Epstein case, the WSJ is not (yet) demonstrably lying, but its track record is also not great. Likelihood of WSJ being right: somewhere close to 0, but not 0 itself.
Not silly at all.
But why give any credence to an organization you say has a near zero likelihood of being correct?
If someone has a 1% track record of being honest, and they tell me something...I'm going to bet the other way. Even if the other guy is also being squirrelly. Say what you want about Trump on this, he's still got a better record overall, and was never the most articulate, or honest on some of the details.
There's just no way I'm taking WSJ and anonymous sources as anything of value, when they did this exact same bullshit for a decade.
If it's fake then the WSJ just opened themselves up to the biggest fucking lawsuit from Trump, it's a slam-dunk for him.
Except it's all anonymous sources, sources familiar with the matter, etc.
They did it for the last decade, and got away with it nearly every time.
It's wild people here are lending WSJ any credibility whatsoever.