It’s always a relief to see the comments being real about this.
lol. lmao, even.
Nicky Jam? She’s hot!
“I didn’t think I would become an example of the face-eating-leopards meme.”
Exactly. “He can be overtly racist and sexist to others but I draw the line at my people” dumb af
“I never in my life thought a month later a comedian would criticize my country and speak poorly of my country so for that reason, I renounce any support of Donald Trump, and I will throw myself to the sideline of anything political,” he added. “Puerto Rico deserves respect.”
What a dumbass. This guy clearly never paid attention in 2017 to Trump’s response to Hurricane Maria.
What is she whining about here?
Probably about how HOT she is!
I love that Tony Hinchliffe may cost Trump big. Idiot. I hope he gets forever roasted for this
Who?
Very famous Latin hip hop singer.
He is someone with 43 million social media followers. We don’t have to know who he is.
Can’t read past the greedy paywall, but if you endorse Trump there are no take-backsies, your still a moron
your still a moron
The classic ‘I don’t care how horrible this person or view is’ until it affects them ‘on noooo, I realized he’s terrible! Now I get to seem like an enlightened white Knight, warning others of obvious flaws I decided not to see!’
I bet if the joke was about Mexicans they wouldn’t have cared, because it’s not them.
“How did the leopard get on my face?”
Flip flopping is worse than just accepting a bad mistake. You were out for PR, not to actually endorse anyone, and got burned.
Rolling Stone - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Rolling Stone:
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone’s opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication’s capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council).
Wiki: unreliable - According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive), though it must be borne in mind that this date is an estimate and not a definitive cutoff, as the deterioration of journalistic practices happened gradually. Some editors have said that low-quality reporting also appeared in some preceding years, but a specific date after which the articles are considered generally unreliable has not been proposed. Previous consensus was that Rolling Stone was generally reliable for political and societal topics before 2011. Most editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should be attributed. Moreover, medical or scientific claims should not be sourced to the publication.
Wiki: unreliable - There is unanimous consensus among editors that Culture Council articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) are self-published sources and are, in most aspects, equivalent to Forbes and HuffPost contributors. Editors, however, have also expressed concern that at least some of the content published is promotional and thus not usable. Editors should thus determine on a case-by-case basis whether the opinions published there are independent and also if they constitute due weight. Usage of these sources for third-party claims in biographies of living persons as well as medical or scientific claims is not allowed.
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Search topics on Ground.News
