|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 12 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:On January 12 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2017 01:26 warding wrote:On January 12 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2017 01:06 farvacola wrote:
Folks with an interest in shaping outcomes are doing their damnedest to characterize these events in a manner that fits their worldview, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that posters like xDaunt and LegalLord are doing their best to criticize everything but the possible reality that Trump has improper connections to Russia. The tactic certainly works if this thread is any indication (just search the words "authoritarian" and "RT" in this thread and you'll see what I mean). On the other hand, we also have plenty of examples which indeed suggest that the "liberal media" is really quite lacking in tactical foresight given how they've legitimized entirely misplaced accusations of "fake news," so there's plenty of blame to be spread here.
As of now, like dankobanana said, the major trending stories are pretty clear in their language, the reports are unverified and have not been presented as otherwise. And no, a polemic snippet from Trump's mouthpiece outlet doesn't change that lol.
I have no idea what you're babbling about. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Russia and Trump's campaign worked together to one degree or another to torpedo Hillary, and I even consider that possibility probable. What requires some proof is the allegation that Russia has subverted Trump, which is precisely what CNN is trying to peddle. Are you not describing a treasonous act? Why would it be treasonous for Trump's campaign to accept information regarding a political opponent from a foreign entity? Pretty sure that bias has reach its heights when you're okay with Trump "working together with Russia to one degree or another to torpedo Hillary". It's not about bias, it's about acknowledging reality. I don't like the idea of Russia interfering in our electoral process. However, I understand why they do it. It's in their national interest to do so, just as it is in our national interest to fuck with other countries. I'm not interested in being uselessly, politically, or even morally judgmental when it comes to foreign relations. As I have made very clear, I'm more interested in the realpolitik.
Speaking of which, Politico released a story about Ukraine apparently using politicized timing to sink Paul Manafort in an attempt to tie Trump to Russian influence, and now needing to save face as a result. I won't link the story because the actual story sucks, but the claim is from them.
|
Trump press conference tl;dw:
-i will be the greatest jobs producer that god ever created
-hacking is bad
-we have the greatest computer minds
-russia said it's fake
-do you really believe Hillary would be tougher on Putin than me? give me a break
-the only ones who care about my tax returns is reporters
And as is tradition he interrupted himself in almost every sentence with a bragging parenthesis
|
On January 12 2017 01:30 Doodsmack wrote:
CNN reported true information, beyond that it's just the reaction of the audience. Individual responsibility right?
It's "true" in the sense there are documents, but reporting on a knee-jerk, "We have to get these out because ratings and the potential they are right!" is a pretty poor sense of journalism.
Disregard, I didn't understand it properly.
|
On January 12 2017 01:44 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 01:30 Doodsmack wrote:
CNN reported true information, beyond that it's just the reaction of the audience. Individual responsibility right? You say that CNN reported true information and then you say that the reaction of the audience is their responsibility? Do you understand how this is contradictory? If we were sure that what CNN reported was true then we should act on it. The problem is that we don't know for sure what part of what CNN reported is true and what isn't because they don't have a verifiable source for it. They're simply reporting on hearsay and rumors regardless of how credible those rumors are they're simply not something an organization that trades in public trust should be dealing with.
The true information that CNN reported on is that Trump was briefed on the memos. CNN said the memos are not corroborated.
|
On January 12 2017 01:44 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 01:30 Doodsmack wrote:
CNN reported true information, beyond that it's just the reaction of the audience. Individual responsibility right? You say that CNN reported true information and then you say that the reaction of the audience is their responsibility? Do you understand how this is contradictory? If we were sure that what CNN reported was true then we should act on it. The problem is that we don't know for sure what part of what CNN reported is true and what isn't because they don't have a verifiable source for it. They're simply reporting on hearsay and rumors regardless of how credible those rumors are they're simply not something an organization that trades in public trust should be dealing with.
What do you mean? CNN reported there was an intelligence briefing about unverified information regarding Russia having leverage over Trump. There is nothing to act on except to attempt to verify that latter information. The briefing itself is newsworthy. Just as Comey's letter to Congress was newsworthy 2 weeks before the election.
|
On January 12 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:On January 12 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2017 01:26 warding wrote:On January 12 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2017 01:06 farvacola wrote:
Folks with an interest in shaping outcomes are doing their damnedest to characterize these events in a manner that fits their worldview, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that posters like xDaunt and LegalLord are doing their best to criticize everything but the possible reality that Trump has improper connections to Russia. The tactic certainly works if this thread is any indication (just search the words "authoritarian" and "RT" in this thread and you'll see what I mean). On the other hand, we also have plenty of examples which indeed suggest that the "liberal media" is really quite lacking in tactical foresight given how they've legitimized entirely misplaced accusations of "fake news," so there's plenty of blame to be spread here.
As of now, like dankobanana said, the major trending stories are pretty clear in their language, the reports are unverified and have not been presented as otherwise. And no, a polemic snippet from Trump's mouthpiece outlet doesn't change that lol.
I have no idea what you're babbling about. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Russia and Trump's campaign worked together to one degree or another to torpedo Hillary, and I even consider that possibility probable. What requires some proof is the allegation that Russia has subverted Trump, which is precisely what CNN is trying to peddle. Are you not describing a treasonous act? Why would it be treasonous for Trump's campaign to accept information regarding a political opponent from a foreign entity? Pretty sure that bias has reach its heights when you're okay with Trump "working together with Russia to one degree or another to torpedo Hillary". It's not about bias, it's about acknowledging reality. I don't like the idea of Russia interfering in our electoral process. However, I understand why they do it. It's in their national interest to do so, just as it is in our national interest to fuck with other countries. I'm not interested in being uselessly, politically, or even morally judgmental when it comes to foreign relations. As I have made very clear, I'm more interested in the realpolitik.
It's about a US candidate colluding with a foreign country against another US candidate. I really don't even believe you that you're okay with that.
|
On January 12 2017 01:47 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 01:30 Doodsmack wrote:
CNN reported true information, beyond that it's just the reaction of the audience. Individual responsibility right? It's "true" in the sense there are documents, but reporting on a knee-jerk, "We have to get these out because ratings and the potential they are right!" is a pretty poor sense of journalism.
That's what Buzzfeed did, it's not what CNN did. I am not sure you've read the CNN stories. They reported on an intel briefing after the intel briefing occurred and they had verified it occurred and specifically 1) did not mention specific allegations 2) did not publish the documents. This was the optimal way and only way for them to report this story, period.
On January 12 2017 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2017 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:On January 12 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2017 01:26 warding wrote:On January 12 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2017 01:06 farvacola wrote:
Folks with an interest in shaping outcomes are doing their damnedest to characterize these events in a manner that fits their worldview, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that posters like xDaunt and LegalLord are doing their best to criticize everything but the possible reality that Trump has improper connections to Russia. The tactic certainly works if this thread is any indication (just search the words "authoritarian" and "RT" in this thread and you'll see what I mean). On the other hand, we also have plenty of examples which indeed suggest that the "liberal media" is really quite lacking in tactical foresight given how they've legitimized entirely misplaced accusations of "fake news," so there's plenty of blame to be spread here.
As of now, like dankobanana said, the major trending stories are pretty clear in their language, the reports are unverified and have not been presented as otherwise. And no, a polemic snippet from Trump's mouthpiece outlet doesn't change that lol.
I have no idea what you're babbling about. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Russia and Trump's campaign worked together to one degree or another to torpedo Hillary, and I even consider that possibility probable. What requires some proof is the allegation that Russia has subverted Trump, which is precisely what CNN is trying to peddle. Are you not describing a treasonous act? Why would it be treasonous for Trump's campaign to accept information regarding a political opponent from a foreign entity? Pretty sure that bias has reach its heights when you're okay with Trump "working together with Russia to one degree or another to torpedo Hillary". It's not about bias, it's about acknowledging reality. I don't like the idea of Russia interfering in our electoral process. However, I understand why they do it. It's in their national interest to do so, just as it is in our national interest to fuck with other countries. I'm not interested in being uselessly, politically, or even morally judgmental when it comes to foreign relations. As I have made very clear, I'm more interested in the realpolitik. It's about a US candidate colluding with a foreign country against another US candidate. I really don't even believe you that you're okay with that.
I don't think it's the collusion that's the problem per se, moreso clandestine collusion and campaign officials touching base with Russia about how they feel about Trump talking points.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
SCOTUS Justice to be picked "two weeks after the 20th."
Trump: "I think it's a disgrace that the intelligence folk would allow information that is so false and fake to come out there, and that reminds me of Nazi Germany. I think Buzzfeed and CNN will see the consequences."
Hahaha this conference is hilarious.
|
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.
Podhoretz-
There is literally no evidence on offer in these memos or from BuzzFeed that any single sentence in these documents is factual or true. What’s more, we know most major news organizations in America had seen them and despite their well-known institutional antipathy toward Trump, had chosen not to publish them or even make reference to them after efforts to substantiate their charges had failed. [...]
The effects of this publication are as follows: to further undermine the trust the President-Elect has for the intelligence community; to further convince the Americans who voted for him that the IC is a political entity, not to be trusted; to further undermine the freedom of the press when such prominent entities are acting so irresponsibly (imagine BuzzFeed treating a birther memo the same way – “was Barack Obama born in Kenya? Sources say maybe, maybe not, but maybe?”); and to put all of us in a position where we have to explain to our older relatives what a specific sexual predilection is in the most circuitous terms possible. 2017 is starting out just great, everybody.
NY Post
(Worth reading in its entirety)
If you rewind the tape back to the 2000s I'd have expected this to come from some reputable source like bush-warcriminal-truth.com. Like Hillary conducting satanic rituals in her Chappaqua basement from freedomeagleexpress.com.
I'd be just fine talking about what Obama did and didn't leave out of his speech, which things he acknowledged with reticence, but now it's all what Trump might have done in a FSB monitored presidential suite hotel room filled with prostitutes. Also, may I welcome the modern moral equivalent of birthers to the Trump presidency.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
"You attacked us, we get a question!"
"No, you don't get a question, you're fake news."
|
It's a shame this will all be deflected to be about the sex acts and such rather than the collusion and financial leverage when both are more plausible and far more important.
(also, it's really cute that Trump quoted Lifezette which is a pure clickbait website when complaining about fake news and published about how Clinton caused a plain crash and Soros compromised voting machines because he's literally too lazy to just quote CNN's own comments on the Buzzfeed article)
(it's also cute he thinks the Buzzfeed and CNN articles are the same but doesn't dispute anything in the CNN article, unlike people here that are calling CNN fake I don't think he's even cognizant of that)
|
What a spineless group of trash in that press conference room. Trump calls out CNN as fake news and people are content to just let it lie instead of you know calling out Trump on how horrible that is.
|
I'm more amused by the fact that Trump thinks that he is the persecuted minority in a Nazi analogy.
|
I can't even begin to describe how cathartic it is to finally see someone on the right fight back against the bullshit press. This is what should have happened for years. This is what W should have done, though I certainly understand his reasons for not doing it.
|
On January 12 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:
I can't even begin to describe how cathartic it is to finally see someone on the right fight back against the bullshit press. This is what should have happened for years. This is what W should have done, though I certainly understand his reasons for not doing it.
It'd be nice if it wasn't coming from someone who is such a huge, huge hypocrite about the subject though-operating under a "somebody said" and insinuations when convenient and lambasting it when inconvenient.
And also someone who doesn't actually read the things they quote.
|
On January 12 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:
I can't even begin to describe how cathartic it is to finally see someone on the right fight back against the bullshit press.
The bullshit press? Noone talks more fake shit with less substance than Donald himself. Buzzfeed's the one that released the document anyway.
|
Also, did he really never deny in the conference his team had clandestine contacts with Russia? He pretty much denied everything else. Wonder if that's a sign it's actually true or he just only read the parts of the story about him.
|
On January 12 2017 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2017 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:On January 12 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2017 01:26 warding wrote:On January 12 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2017 01:06 farvacola wrote:
Folks with an interest in shaping outcomes are doing their damnedest to characterize these events in a manner that fits their worldview, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that posters like xDaunt and LegalLord are doing their best to criticize everything but the possible reality that Trump has improper connections to Russia. The tactic certainly works if this thread is any indication (just search the words "authoritarian" and "RT" in this thread and you'll see what I mean). On the other hand, we also have plenty of examples which indeed suggest that the "liberal media" is really quite lacking in tactical foresight given how they've legitimized entirely misplaced accusations of "fake news," so there's plenty of blame to be spread here.
As of now, like dankobanana said, the major trending stories are pretty clear in their language, the reports are unverified and have not been presented as otherwise. And no, a polemic snippet from Trump's mouthpiece outlet doesn't change that lol.
I have no idea what you're babbling about. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Russia and Trump's campaign worked together to one degree or another to torpedo Hillary, and I even consider that possibility probable. What requires some proof is the allegation that Russia has subverted Trump, which is precisely what CNN is trying to peddle. Are you not describing a treasonous act? Why would it be treasonous for Trump's campaign to accept information regarding a political opponent from a foreign entity? Pretty sure that bias has reach its heights when you're okay with Trump "working together with Russia to one degree or another to torpedo Hillary". It's not about bias, it's about acknowledging reality. I don't like the idea of Russia interfering in our electoral process. However, I understand why they do it. It's in their national interest to do so, just as it is in our national interest to fuck with other countries. I'm not interested in being uselessly, politically, or even morally judgmental when it comes to foreign relations. As I have made very clear, I'm more interested in the realpolitik. It's about a US candidate colluding with a foreign country against another US candidate. I really don't even believe you that you're okay with that.
Trumpers became ok with it the moment it (possibly) won them an election.
It was rather remarkable to see so many people go from "USA USA" to "yeah its fine that foreign powers attempt to undermine our country, you cant prove it actually did anything".
|
If only Russia had hacked these memos and Wikileaks had released them, then Trump would have been perfectly happy to have them released. Or at least would have had to do some interesting pretzels about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
