Gateway Pundit Forced to Admit Truth

You're trying to play the tired old game. Trump told over 30,000 documented lies during his 4 years, but you and your ilk will dishonestly say "are you claiming Joe Biden never lied?".

I'm clearly smarter than you.

 

Oh let me guess..... In your mind there is no dishonesty with left-wing media....

You cannot wake those who only pretend to be asleep

 

You're making a claim. I'm merely asking you to verify it. Your refusal to even try says volumes.

 

You mean the claim that they don't point out the dishonesty of democrat media?

 

There is certainly no evidence to back up that claim.

You see people that are truly intelligent don't feel the need to go around the internet telling other people their high opinion of them self

 

Where does it say the settlement was over $100 million?

That sounds like a ridiculously large amount of money for two defamed election workers. I find that hard to believe without supporting evidence of such, especially when you say they agreed to that amount.

 

Guliani lost his lawsuit for $148 million by the same 2 plaintiffs. They had gateway dead to rights.

Theres no way they didnt settle for at least $100 million.

 

People can say "but........I think CNN is dishonest too...and.....they are mean to Trump......", but that is only a deflection. Gateway Pundit falsely accused two individuals of illegal ballot counts, even after the accusations had been proven false. The story had Team Trump also attack the two women. Heck, Rudy Giuliani had to pay them millions of dollars for bearing false witness. As a result the women became targets of a wide speared hate campaign, where they had to fear for their lives. It's not at all surprising they won the case.

 

Resorting to ad hom fallacies only reveals ones inability to defend a position on merit. I do not have a party, and therefor, have no ilk. You are right about trump and the partisan media. You are criticizing your own reflection.

 

I'm glad they got something since Rudy stiffed them.

Will the admission by this slime ball, lying sack of shyte outfit change the way its users view the site? No. Will it change the way they view the false assertions of voter fraud? No.

 

Gee, why would anyone think the POT is the party of misogyny?

 

Your fail-posts are boring.

 

Oh, you definitely have an ilk: dishonest posters who try to claim equivalency between massive and minor offenses, between a record of continued lying versus some one-off misstatement.

Try to converse honestly.

 

You said they agreed to a $100 million settlement. You either have a credible link stating this or you are just making it up out of thin air. I am interested, if you have proof of this, by all means provide it. Until that point, what you have said sounds incredibly unlikely that they would agree to such a thing. I truly doubt they have that type of money, and if that's the case, there would be no reason in the world to agree to that settlement. Logically, that doesn't make any sense.

Outrageous civil fines are often assessed to later be dropped by copious amounts, so what you say about Guiliani losing that type of judgment is not surprising at least prior to appeal. Thats is not what you are claiming about Gateway Pundit. You are claiming they settled for an amount that far exceeds the corporations value. That doesn't make any sense. They would not have a reason for doing so.

 

Anyone who thinks that left-wing media doesn't lie..... Well I guess I'll just leave imagination to fill in the blank

 

Ironic to see someone claiming to know what others believe and feel accuse others of dishonesty. I have honestly described my position. There are no honest politicians or trustworthy media sources.

 

America illegally exports guns to South American countries which makes them less safe and unstable fuelling - guess what?

 

They have enough money and power to get whatever they want.

 

They don't have the money. They agreed to a settlement because they were planning to file bankruptcy.

 

Essential reading.


Donald Trump, the Most Unmanly President
Why don’t the president’s supporters hold him to their own standard of masculinity?

Why do working-class white men—the most reliable component of Donald Trump’s base—support someone who is, by their own standards, the least masculine man ever to hold the modern presidency? The question is not whether Trump fails to meet some archaic or idealized version of masculinity. The president’s inability to measure up to Marcus Aurelius or Omar Bradley is not the issue. Rather, the question is why so many of Trump’s working-class white male voters refuse to hold Trump to their own standards of masculinity—why they support a man who behaves more like a little boy.

 

I asked for examples. You balked. Not my problem.

 

I'm not discerning what you believe, just what you post. And you (try to) post false equivalence.

FoxNews knowingly pushed a lie about voting machines to their gullible viewers. Over and over and over. For months. They let Maria Bartiroma accuse them, they let Sean Hannity and all the rest spew lies. Every day.

But CNN said something that turned out to be false!
Did they push it as a narrative for months?
No. It was a single instant.
Did they issue a correction themselves on air?
Yes.

Thats how these rightwing accusations usually go.

 

The fact that you even had to ask for example tells me not to waste my time going to find any because you'll just make excuses for them

 

How he responded to his assassination is the definition of physical courage. I could never meet that standard. This is what I expect from my leaders, people who are better than me in the value that I admire most - courage. It is the trait that defines masculinity and separates the lions from the jackals. True masculinity involves a willingness to kill and die for your tribe, whether that tribe be the country or your immediate family. In the end, your civilization lives and dies based on the number of lions it has (including in the elite class). Our civilization has never been more bereft of lions in its elites since the country's inception. It is jackals all the way down.

It is hilarious that you define Omar Bradley as your standard for masculinity.... a man who did not experience even one second of combat in either WW1 or WW2. My standard would be Patton or Rommel..... people who actually put their own lives on the line for their tribe.

Side note, progressives do not get to define what the standards for masculinity are for conservatives. When progressives can figure out whether men can have babies or not, perhaps their opinion on reality can be treated with something other than derisive laughter.

 

That's hilarious.

Imagine someone thinking they can define masculinity when their party is confused about who is actually a woman and is putting tampon machines and little boys bathrooms and allowing grown men and dresses to pee in girls bathrooms.

Lolol