EPTUn monstre gai vaut mieux
Qu ' un sentimental ennuyeux.
[a gay monster is worth more than a sentimental bore]
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6539
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
Un monstre gai vaut mieux Qu ' un sentimental ennuyeux. [a gay monster is worth more than a sentimental bore] | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 11 2017 19:02 GreenHorizons wrote: I have a hard time thinking Wikileaks doesn't extensively verify their documents, otherwise they would be the luckiest people on the planet for never publishing fake documents. No one has accused wikileaks of being fake. They have accused Assange of being biased and cherry picking what he releases in order to have a specific effect--because he is quoted as saying that is what he is doing. Pizzagate is fake news not because an email was leaked of democrats ordering pizzas from a conservative, but because berniebro types decided to see more into the emails than what written, trying to argue that ordering pizza is a child sex ring and that hanging out with friends is satanic rituals. The leaks are linked with Russian espionage, not for being fake. Educate yourself a bit. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 12 2017 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote: No one has accused wikileaks of being fake. That much, at least, is untrue. The claim has been made, including in this thread (examples I can recall include P6 asserting fake documents, and Mohdoo claiming they don't have any credibility), even if it was ultimately retracted when the documents were clearly established to be not fake. The narrative evolves from fake, to irrelevant, to Russia, in the climate I have seen this election. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18250 Posts
On January 12 2017 00:30 IgnE wrote: As Voltaire says: Un monstre gai vaut mieux Qu ' un sentimental ennuyeux. [a gay monster is worth more than a sentimental bore] And presto, Napoleon was put in charge. A merry monster indeed! But yeah, quoting dead French philosophers does sound sophisticated. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On January 12 2017 00:17 LegalLord wrote: "Unverified but explosive" what a brilliant way to cover for proliferating absolute bullshit without taking credit for it. Pretty much the definition of fake news right there but some people will pretend that your buried qualifier makes it a sign of credibility. What Americans did was create a situation where both parties put forward a candidate that most people in the country utterly despised. And we were forced to make a choice, and here was the result. It would require a reader to shut off their brain to not understand the unverified qualifiers that Buzzfeed put on its story. CNN's story is that Trump was briefed on it, which is newsworthy. And there again it would require a reader to shut off their brain to not understand what it is that CNN is reporting on. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 12 2017 00:40 Doodsmack wrote: It would require a reader to shut off their brain to not understand the unverified qualifiers of this story. CNN's story is that Trump was briefed on it, which is newsworthy. And there again it would require a reader to shut off their brain to not understand what it is that CNN is reporting on. That's precisely what they're counting on. That people read it and eat it all up without proof. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12423 Posts
On January 12 2017 00:30 IgnE wrote: As Voltaire says: Un monstre gai vaut mieux Qu ' un sentimental ennuyeux. [a gay monster is worth more than a sentimental bore] Skilled translator here, managed to keep most of the meaning with a rhyme | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
"Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said. "Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the director of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue." | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On January 12 2017 00:41 LegalLord wrote: That's precisely what they're counting on. That people read it and eat it all up without proof. "Eating it all up" would imply that CNN is saying the contents of the memo are true, which they are not. | ||
|
dankobanana
Croatia244 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On January 12 2017 00:48 dankobanana wrote: how in the world is this fake news? the allegations may not be true, but they exist for some time now. and thats all thats been put forth People need to save face from the prevalence of actual fake news on the social media accounts of Trump's base. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 12 2017 00:48 Doodsmack wrote: "Eating it all up" would imply that CNN is saying the contents of the memo are true, which they are not. Ok, fair enough. But then "I hear some really smart people are saying X" is also not saying that X is true, so there's no credibility problem there either. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 12 2017 00:41 LegalLord wrote: That's precisely what they're counting on. That people read it and eat it all up without proof. Exactly. This stuff isn't hard to understand. There's a reason why these memos have been floating around for months and no one has dared to report on them until now. I think Breitbart has the significance of this mess right: The entire episode repeated a pattern from the presidential campaign, in which the media reported something presumed to be damaging to Trump, then waited for him to implode, and expressed shock when he did not. However, on previous occasions, there was usually some kernel of truth to the stories, such as a remark Trump himself had actually made in public. In this case, there is no real evidence whatsoever of the allegations, and significant evidence to the contrary, including evidence of a hoax. The net result is that CNN and Buzzfeed have destroyed whatever residual confidence the public might have had in the media. And they have done so with just days to go before the start of a presidency that looks set to continue in the “strong executive” tradition of its two predecessors. If there were ever a time for the media to repair their damaged credibility, this was it. Now, in the hypothetical case the media ever find something truly worrying about Donald Trump, few people will believe them. Source. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 12 2017 00:45 RCMDVA wrote: McCain trying to get out from underneath the Trump Bus about to run him over : He's trying to run away from the train wreck that is the eventual fallout from this fake news, and he knows there is nothing good to be had from having his name associated with this story. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2395 Posts
Worst bit is that this isn't at all implausible. An amoral businessman being entangled in business dealings in Russia and China? Sounds plausible. A guy who brags about sexually assaulting women and is on his second eastern-european wife (nothing wrong with that) engaging in wild monkey sex with russian models in Moscow? Pretty plausible. A guy who had no political advantage at all in cozying up to Russia and Putin and yet keeps defending both while being close to people who are close to Russia's political circles (ie. Manafort), being compromised by the Russian intelligence services? Pretty plausible. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 12 2017 00:37 LegalLord wrote: That much, at least, is untrue. The claim has been made, including in this thread (examples I can recall include P6 asserting fake documents, and Mohdoo claiming they don't have any credibility), even if it was ultimately retracted when the documents were clearly established to be not fake. The narrative evolves from fake, to irrelevant, to Russia, in the climate I have seen this election. I never understood those stances when reading the emails themselves only shows that the DNC and democrats acted and talked just like everyone else that works a day job. When you call sharing Risotto recipes damning evidence to a person's character--even when it isn't her sharing the recipes, you'd realize there's no need to deny the existence of the emails. You can point to the fact that hacking and leaks are occurring and watching liberals not care about online privacy so long as its other people's online privacy at stake is hilarious. | ||
|
brian
United States9639 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 12 2017 00:56 warding wrote: Should the media also not have reported on Comey's letter? I really fail to see the difference in reporting either case. In both cases, there is a government agency investigating evidence that could potentially be damaging to a politician. In fact, in this case the evidence potentially much more damning, whereas in Clinton's case they weren't even sure they what they had was 'evidence'. Worst bit is that this isn't at all implausible. An amoral businessman being entangled in business dealings in Russia and China? Sounds plausible. A guy who brags about sexually assaulting women and is on his second eastern-european wife (nothing wrong with that) engaging in wild monkey sex with russian models in Moscow? Pretty plausible. A guy who had no political advantage at all in cozying up to Russia and Putin and yet keeps defending both while being close to people who are close to Russia's political circles (ie. Manafort), being compromised by the Russian intelligence services? Pretty plausible. Which is why people got upset at Comey and not the news agencies covering Comey? | ||
| ||
