‘You’re EXHAUSTING for no good reason.’ Hope Carol Roth got her receipt after OWNING Tom Nichols in heated debate over the media
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
See traditional media.
Carol Roth had a serious question that did far more to slam the media than any snark …
Serious question- how are people who have been wrong on just about everything for the past 3 or so years still considered reputable sources?
875 people are talking about this
Hey, John Brennan was clearly full of crap so LET’S INTERVIEW HIM SOME MORE.
Yup, that’s the media, especially our good, delicate, tolerant friends at CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, etc. etc.
Because they’re telling people what they want to hear and getting good ratings for it.
See Sarah Labance PhD's other Tweets
And if it hurts Trump and his supporters along the way, all the better.
They set aside common sense, facts, and evidence to recycle their hallucinogenic "hope and change" dreams. It was never about truth and all about continuing a narrative. Destroy people to win elections. Disgusting. Who thinks like that?
See Jim Laursen's other Tweets
Ahem, the media.
Carol’s question garnered the attention of Tom Nichols, lucky her.
Sure, he’s curious.
I would definite it as "not correct". You could pick any starting point, but I was going with "Trump has 0 chance to win" to "the polls show Hillary will win" on up (but it could be applied in a lot of places and times).
See Carol Roth's other Tweets
Well, okay, a wrong call on the election. (Lots of us made that one.) But three years of bad calls? Curious who you think that includes.
See Tom Nichols's other Tweets
He’s trying SO HARD here.
Oh, c'mon- you've been paying attention for the last few years, right??!!
See Carol Roth's other Tweets
She had to ask …
I have. That's why I asked.
Attacks on the rule of law? Check.
Free-fall as a superpower? Check.
Pro-Russia policy? Check.
Trade war? Check.
Budget busting tax cuts? Check.
Call I missed? Gorsuch. Also, economy hasn't cratered. Yet. But so far, pretty on target by me.
See Tom Nichols's other Tweets
Jeebus, Larry, and Moseph.
Tom, my tweet had nothing to do with you and I don’t really know how you would interpret that somehow it did.
See Carol Roth's other Tweets
Because his ego insists that everything is about him.
That’s how.
Hey, I was jumping in on a tweet that didn't name names. I was curious. I was one of the people who called the election wrong, and Twitter is a public place, and sometimes subtweeting hits the wrong targets if not more precisely aimed. :)
See Tom Nichols's other Tweets
This guy.
I wasn't subtweeting-I was giving commentary on 100s of people.
I didn't say "1 thing wrong".
I'm baffled you can't name one of the 100s that are consistently wrong & that you not being MSM would consider it was about you.
I tend to come after ideas/actions, not individuals.
:)
See Carol Roth's other Tweets
We love that she returned the smile.
I am neither here to make it easier, nor to name names. :)
See Carol Roth's other Tweets
Someone get Tom some aloe, that’s one serious burn.
No, Tom. A subtweet is a tweet specifically about someone (or a few people). General commentary that includes 100s of people is commentary, not a subtweet.
Here's a non-subtweet: You are exhausting for no good reason! :)
Clearly you need to have the last word- so have at it.
See Carol Roth's other Tweets
Technically WE will get the last word.
I am exhausting for *excellent* reasons, Mrs. McClain
See Tom Nichols's other Tweets
Everyone, roll your eyes along with us.
There ya’ go.
‘You’re EXHAUSTING for no good reason.’ Hope Carol Roth got her receipt after OWNING Tom Nichols in heated debate over the media
![‘You’re EXHAUSTING for no good reason.’ Hope Carol Roth got her receipt after OWNING Tom Nichols in heated debate over the media]()
Reviewed by Your Destination
on
April 11, 2019
Rating:
No comments