DEMOCRATS BTFO'd:

DEMOCRATS BTFO'd:
politicaloutsource.com/2016/11/what-van-jones-and-other-teary-eye.html

FUUUUCKK is the media finally being honest???

fuuuckk

>yfw democrats tears

lol

fucking rekt

5 posts, 1 poster. Go fuck yourself op.

>muh muh white lashing

that dude is such a whiny little bitch

good article though

fight me cunt

honestly, fuck van jones

agreed

For the record I did try to read the article but couldn't make it past the incorrect usage of there/their/they're. This is why freedom of speech should be tightened down so that not everyone can start a news site.

same

good read

wheres the usage of that

A top notch reply from a top notch poster.

tjekt

check'd and fucking rekt cunt

quick bump for justice

>honest media
this cant be true

What an asshole

>literally no grammar mistakes
>claims there's grammar mistakes
only on Sup Forums

idk what you're talking about tbh i didnt see any of that

trump will make america great!

godb less the usa

check em

check'd

I don't know why I'm fighting with OP who is obviously shilling his own article but here is a screenshot of the article before he changed the usage of there/their/they're.

Before you claim hacks, attempt to edit a page in mobile Chrome. This is what it was.

Just own up to the mistake, dude. Keep trying and practicing and maybe someday you'll be a real good journalist.

check'd, but tbqh this isnt my article -- i cant write for fucking shit

>inspect element
nice b8 m8 i r8 8/8

>Just remember, as tolerable liberals take to the streets... they're the peaceful ones ... and the Republicans who have been quite this entire election, only to have their voice heard in silence in a voting booth, that they're the hateful ones.

Trump supporters have been responsible for a fair amount of violence against Muslims and Hispanics this election season, actually. I'm not saying that makes these rioters right, or even that the beatings of camel jockeys and spics were wrong. Fuck sandniggers and wetbacks.

I am saying the writer is being factually inaccurate, though,

I addressed this impossibility in my reply, dipshit.

Trips confirm, and I confirm with my own eyes. This site is HTTP, first off. Secondly, it's painfully obvious that this is not mainstream media. Thirdly, it reads like a real opinion piece, regardless of facts present.

It's really trying to sell me on something it shouldn't have to. OP was a faggot, and used good means to an awful end. Shame on them.

>muh sides r8 8/8
>being this b8

>this site is HTTP
what does even prove?
>it's painfully obvious that this is not a mainstream media
how the fuck so?
>it reads like a real opinion piece, regardless of facts present
how?

this intolerance is why democrats lost and is pretty much what the article was about.

true

i personally thought it was a great read

democrats on suicide watch

good shit

god is real

Try again in 4 years democrats

bump

Found OP

haha that was the best part, watching them tear up

at least you tried

...

kek

honest media? holy shit

...

its 2 delicious 4 me

absolute madman

>1 off from trips
check em

van jones is a fucking moron, like most liberals

Well for one, anyone caring enough these days can make an unsecured HTTP webpage. It's super duper easy and cheap in terms of time and effort, if not even cost for the domain host.

>how the fuck so
Because it's not part of the established list of MSM outlets. I can give a list of the MSM outlets people generally agree on as a whole if you ask me to.

>how
First off, the title is
>What Van Jones and Other Teary Eye Democrats Don't Understand
>Other Teary Eye

Secondly
>People like Van Jones
>People like
>and others who promote their agendas through scare tactics and
>and others
So we have a target group, and they're super emotional. That's the selling point. There's some rhetoric coming from certain Democrats who are dancing around the alleged real issues, and it's disgusting.

>Liberal writers and news outlets mocked half the nation, sticking their fingers out like
That's a really opinionated way to write
>Liberal writers and news outlets were overwhelmingly critical of the nation in general
Do you really need to include that Liberal writers were "sticking their fingers out like schoolchildren"? What's with the allusion? Where's the straight, factual information with no appeal to emotion or sensibilities? The article doesn't need to tell me someone's acting like a child, I can discern that for myself as a reader. If it's doing that, it's trying to influence me and coerce my opinions on the matter rather than engage me with the happenings themselves.

I don't think I have to go on any further. You know why tabloids are shitty.

>Because it's not part of the established list of MSM outlets. I can give a list of the MSM outlets people generally agree on as a whole if you ask me to.
never heard of this, interesting.. what is MSM?

>Teary Eye
not sure what you mean by that, is it the punctuation or what?

>people like van jones
what did you mean by its "disgusting", wasnt that the point of the article?

>Do you really need to include that Liberal writers were "sticking their fingers out like schoolchildren"? What's with the allusion? Where's the straight, factual information with no appeal to emotion or sensibilities? The article doesn't need to tell me someone's acting like a child, I can discern that for myself as a reader. If it's doing that, it's trying to influence me and coerce my opinions on the matter rather than engage me with the happenings themselves.
Isn't that the point of an opinion piece?

>you know why tabloids are shitty
what is a tabloid? sorry being a newfag

Wait for it... Any second now you'll get six posts from OP saying how wrong you are. And here we are just trying to help.

>yfw hillary shills were really trump supporters in disguise

im just happy that the shills will finally go away now that hillary will cut the funding since shes 50 million deep in debt

MSM is Mainstream Media. It's common slang, but don't take my word for it; ask the entire internet using Google, if not the many other ways you can ask the Internet about something as a whole.

>not sure what you mean by that
Now I know you're just pretending.

>what did you mean
The point is that it's not supposed to be trying to sell me on-

>Isn't that the point of an opinion piece
Yes. Yes, you get it. This is the point. It's an opinion piece- anything inside of it worth knowing isn't worth much. That's not to say that it's not worth anything, no. Being able to take away the key points from the article is important.

But all of the fluff isn't something you would ever need to be told to feel, or be told to care about, or memorize. The fluff isn't important. This is what makes the article a little bit shit, and nearly impossible for it to be BTFO material in full. It also means that, because it isn't mainstream, it's not representative of the MSM (Mainstream Media) or it's "turning honest".

OP made one big shitpost and used semi-shitpost material to do it.

hmmm.. interesting, never thought of it that away.. so about this "MSM", what makes a website qualified to be in that category or whatever?

bump it

i love this so much

hahaha fucking same