/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Doesn't matter he still won the debate

>>4883373

Not a single source or reason to believe the author in that entire article.

I 100% agree that it is true… but how the

FUCK

can you call that shit journalism.

>>4883400

journalism's really let itself go lately

>>4883400

>Not a single source or reason to believe the author in that entire article.

What?

There is both a source AND a reason given in the article.

>>4883407

must be a Christie donator.

>>4883459

Are you blind or illiterate or both?

The Business Insider mention only said what everyone saw in the debate… it was a timeline. Its just that idiots opinion.

>>4883501

Source:

>Trump’s close associate Roger Stone tweeted out that the Trump camp was only given 20 tickets by the GOP.

So he's lying? I mean I'm reading the source right in front of me. Are you the one that's illiterate? Because it's right there in the article, and right here in this reply. Can you read?

>>4883400

Let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Journalism doesn't know what it is doing. They knows exactly what they is doing.

>>4883518

That is not a reputable source anon…

>A refugee told me that Angela Merkel is the greatest Chancellor ever.

>Reporter: It checks out.

We should let it be known if they do that again at the next rally rnc headquarters will start getting blankety blank blanked

>>4883533

>That is not a reputable source anon

Oh so now it's coming down to credibility is it? You want to change the goalposts, I see. Your first reply was this:

>Not a single source or reason to believe the author in that entire article.

Not a single source you said. But now it's "not a reputable source." So which is it? You do realize you are the one that is illiterate and blind here, right?

>>4883550

Anon….

Think about how retarded your previous statement was. It is not a source because its not reputable. It cannot by definition be used as a source.

>>4883533

>Roger Stone is a seasoned political operative and pundit. A veteran of eight national presidential campaigns, he served as a senior campaign aide to three Republican presidents before leaving the GOP for the Libertarian Party. He is author of the New York Times bestseller The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ and has written for Fox Opinion, Breitbart News, StoneZone.com, the Daily Caller and the Op-Ed page of the New York Times. He lives in South Florida.​

Seems reasonably credible to me. Why would you say he's lying? Why do you think he made up some arbitrary number of 20 tickets? Why would he say 20 tickets instead of 10 tickets, or 5 tickets or 30 tickets?

>>4883557

>It cannot by definition be used as a source.

Definition of what? Roger Stone is being used as a source. People use anonymous sources, I'm sure you are aware. Are you trying to say that no source is used when a credible reporter uses an anonymous source?

>>4883598

this

get the fuck outta here trumpkins!

>>4883606

Whoa whoa whoa. I support Trump and I know that Roger Stone is right about this but that article has 0 proof.

>>4883598

>For that reason he cannot be used as a source.

Except that he IS being used as a source. So how can he not be used as a source even though he is being used as a source?

You said:

>>Not a single source in that entire article.

Yet, the author wrote the article based on a source. How is this possible?

>>4883622

It is clear to me now that you are the 'author' of this garbage as you clearly took personal offense to the fact that you have no writing talent. Don't write again.

>>4883598

Also by what criteria are you using to determine credibility here? Is Roger Stone a known liar? Does he make shit up and use random numbers in his lies?

>>4883642

Writing talent has nothing to do with credible reference and source material.

>>4883622

>>4883647

Testimony isn't solid evidence.

That has nothing to do with him being a liar or not. I even think Trump/Stone is telling the truth too since it is an RNC debate. I would assume donors have priority and since Trump is self-funded he wouldn't have as many donors as Jeb and some of the others.

But even then, testimony isn't worth much based on the nature of humans. It's the same in court.

>>4883373

Lad, only one (one and a half at times) person ever clapped for the Emporer, but the crowd would cheer whenever Yeb spoke…

>>4883680

This ain't a court of law.

It's a ragpiece made to get ad money.

>OP's on /pol/ now get attacked in the same tone and style as journo shills on Twitter

Shills are very real. They're all over the internet today.

>>4883680

>Testimony isn't solid evidence.

It's actually very solid evidence when it comes from a credible and/or knowledgeable source. It's used all the time in court.

>>4883400

>Not a single source or reason to believe the author

>>4883688

>>4883642

I'm trying to understand how your brain works. You said no source was used, even though a source was used. Were you using hyperbole or some kind of rhetorical device to get your point across? Or did you literally believe no source was used, even though you saw a source was used in the article?

>>4883699

The question wasn't whether it's a ragpiece, the question was whether it's good journalism.

>>4883705

Being used all the time doesn't make it more valuable than straightforward evidence. You are misinterpreting what I am saying.

Listen here, goyim!

Let's dispel once and for all the fiction that wealthy donors bought up a bunch of tickets to stack an audience in their favor. They dindu nuffin

>>4883724

>Being used all the time doesn't make it more valuable than straightforward evidence.

Credible testimony is very straightforward. Do you mean physical evidence?

If all "testimony" should be discounted then journalism is impossible to perform.

>>4883522

And let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Journalism doesn't know what it is doing. They knows exactly what they is doing.

Oh look, another source

http://dcwhispers.com/is-trump-right-about-debate-audiences-being-stuffed-with-lobbyists-donors-in-a-word-yes/

>>4883373

> tfw you have the same reaction as Kasich to this zinger

>>4883373

Just wait until they stack the vote in New Hampshire.

>>4883929

>That's right, goyim! It's all fixed! Remember that! Nothing good can happen!

Filtered. Lame demoralization talking point, Daniel.

Implying democracy works and America worth saving

>>4883941

>>That's right, goyim! It's all fixed! Remember that! Nothing good can happen!

I simply said that it's a pretty good bet that ZOG won't let Trump win.

Polls do not equal votes.

>Filtered.

Cry more.

>Lame demoralization talking point,

When the vote is fixed and Trump isn't allowed to win, remember you said that to me.

>Daniel.

Who?

Also..

>lol, just wait for trump.

>>4883764

There are different types of journalism and articles. And I did not say all testimony should be discounted. You are deliberately misunderstanding it seems.

The problem with "word-of-mouth" is just that. It comes from the lips of a human. For that reason it is not straightforward. Humans are fickle, they do not remember things correctly all the time, etc. The list goes on.

What this article is attempting to do is use it as proof. The headline is even "SCANDAL". It states its claims absolutely. What should have been done instead is to raise questions and trigger discussion due to its lack of knowledge.

That is why it is not a good article. Not because what it is saying is untrue or not, but because of how it is written, how it arrives to its conclusion, etc. It is a combination of problems, the lack of proof is only one of them. Another problem is how little content there is and how childishly written it is. The tone of it, even.

The best the article can achieve is making people who already support Trump to be mad.

>>4883855

This is a better article. It does what the article in the OP should have done and does it better.

>>4883964

>>4883967

Why didn't you check my dubs, faggots?

I'm honestly surprised they let 20 Trumps supporters in at all.

Dead silence from 100% hostile audience would be much more powerful, at the cost of some people realizing it is ultra-blatantly rigged that way, instead of just mostly-blatantly rigged that way.

Then again, if there were none then I'm sure Trump would really tear them a new asshole more than normal.

Trump explained at his rally today. The students scalped their tickets.

>>4883400

He tried to say something about the audience being stacked against him during the debate, but he couldn't get a complete sentence out between the audience's booing and Jeb's autism.

>>4883988

VoD?

>>4883988 checked

Dats rite, honkey! RNC dindu nuffin! smh tbh fam

Can money truly insulate the incredibly wealthy from the justified anger of the betrayed citizens below them? Will there come a point when you cannot pay a bodyguard enough money to protect u?

>>4883971

>Testimony isn't solid evidence.

>And I did not say all testimony should be discounted.

You said testimony isn't solid evidence. If the strength of the evidence is determined by its nature, you are discounting it based on its nature.

>>4883971

>Testimony isn't solid evidence.

>And I did not say all testimony should be discounted.

You said testimony isn't solid evidence. If the strength of the evidence is determined by its nature, you are discounting it based on its nature.

I don't give a fuck whether or not it's a good or bad article. I'm only interested in one thing. Was the audience manipulated on purpose to fuck over Trump or not?

From the article I posted:

>The single greatest determinant of who gets into the debate hall of any given debate is the state political party machine in which that debate takes place – more commonly known as the “party bosses.”

This is consistent with the eye witness accounts gathered by Info Wars insert joke here that said the campaigns seemed to control the flow of tickets - the campaigns, which are often made up of local political operatives.

>>4884061

>Was the audience manipulated on purpose to fuck over Trump or not?

Yes,

>>4884047

>>4884061

The solidarity of something doesn't mean it should be discounted or not. I am not discounting it by saying it is not "solid evidence". I am saying it is questionable, not worthless.

>>4884128

So you're a concern troll. Thanks for clearing that up.

>>4884148

If I was a concern troll I wouldn't have said the article you linked was better.

Speaking of dirty tricks, what the fuck is up with this? Is Carly the next to go?

http://www.wmur.com/politics/new-hampshire-primary-source-would-some-gop-presidential-candidates-drag-down-the-partys-november-ticket/37804390

>Canvassers purporting to be from Jeb Bush’s campaign went to the wrong home on Saturday afternoon, allegedly telling the homeowner that Carly Fiorina dropped out of the presidential race and asking that he consider supporting Bush

>The homeowner turned out to be Bob DeMaura, the father of Steve DeMaura, who is the executive director of the pro-Carly Fiorina super PAC Carly for America.

>But obviously, the canvassers didn’t know who Bob DeMaura is. He is also the editor of the NH Insider web site, where he posted about the incident late Saturday afternoon.

Jeb is running out of money. He must have had a pay a lot for those audience members.

>>4884017

>>4884019

https://youtu.be/O3qEX2sVQC4?t=662

Maybe it's a joke, but it sounds plausible.

>>4883978

>responding to someone you said you filtered

>>4883606

Hi Liz

>>4883686

How new are you nigger