|
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 02:19 TheTenthDoc wrote:
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.
He ignored a reporter he labeled as fake news.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
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.
Arguably Bush won his second term due to his own media attack dogs.
|
On January 12 2017 02:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 01:51 Doodsmack wrote: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".
I'm sure you were shocked when Trump said he expected Putin to treat the US better from here on out, and warned them if they did not.
From what I'm hearing from now, he should've said what Russia did was fine because Trump supporters would be fine anyways.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Dude, he's just putting it out there, not claiming it to be true. You can't fault him for it any more than you can fault poor, poor, maligned CNN and Buzzfeed for sharing what they discovered while noting that it is unverified.
|
On January 12 2017 02:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested 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. 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. Arguably Bush won his second term due to his own media attack dogs.
There's a big difference between sending out a surrogate to do it as opposed to leveraging the presidential bully pulpit.
|
On January 12 2017 01:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 00:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 12 2017 00:37 LegalLord wrote:On January 12 2017 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 11 2017 19:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2017 18:50 Acrofales wrote:
There's two things here and neither are fake news. One isn't even journalism, it's just WikiLeaks on a different platform. BuzzFeed threw an unsourced, unverified document up and said "have fun". Assange is probably livid that he missed out on these clicks.
CNN, for once, did some reasonable reporting, assuming they aren't just inventing the intelligence briefing and their 2 official sources. That is not fake news, despite people not liking what is being said. CNN's base seems covered. Either they reported on a briefing about problematic Intel regarding Trump, or they reported intelligence officials being partisan hacks and briefing government based on unverified claptrap. Either way, that's a story worth telling. 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. 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. Because risotto recipes are what the outrage was about, rather than a distraction cooked up to distract from the fact that people were concerned about collusion, the GS speeches, and the like, rather than cooking.
An email ordering pizza led to gunmen shooting up a Trump supporter's business. The emails revealed nothing, people simply wanted them to, hence why they have to falsify stories from them. From pretty much every "evil" leak that she supposedly had. The worse thing you can say is that some emails had the letter C on it and that Hillary is not against adapting to globalization. That's it, that's all the leaks actually show. The only reason they were damning is that people Bernie supporters kept fabricating meaning from them.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 12 2017 02:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 02:22 LegalLord wrote: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. Arguably Bush won his second term due to his own media attack dogs. There's a big difference between sending out a surrogate to do it as opposed to leveraging the presidential bully pulpit.
Clinton and Obama abused political credibility for influence, I'll give you that.
|
On January 12 2017 02:24 LegalLord wrote:Dude, he's just putting it out there, not claiming it to be true. You can't fault him for it any more than you can fault poor, poor, maligned CNN and Buzzfeed for sharing what they discovered while noting that it is unverified.
Well CNN reported on something that was told to the President Elect by four intelligence and law enforcement heads. And Trump did not say his source was unverified, in fact he simply said "extremely" credible.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 12 2017 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On January 12 2017 00:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 12 2017 00:37 LegalLord wrote:On January 12 2017 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 11 2017 19:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2017 18:50 Acrofales wrote:
There's two things here and neither are fake news. One isn't even journalism, it's just WikiLeaks on a different platform. BuzzFeed threw an unsourced, unverified document up and said "have fun". Assange is probably livid that he missed out on these clicks.
CNN, for once, did some reasonable reporting, assuming they aren't just inventing the intelligence briefing and their 2 official sources. That is not fake news, despite people not liking what is being said. CNN's base seems covered. Either they reported on a briefing about problematic Intel regarding Trump, or they reported intelligence officials being partisan hacks and briefing government based on unverified claptrap. Either way, that's a story worth telling. 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. 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. Because risotto recipes are what the outrage was about, rather than a distraction cooked up to distract from the fact that people were concerned about collusion, the GS speeches, and the like, rather than cooking. An email ordering pizza led to gunmen shooting up a Trump supporter's business. The emails revealed nothing, people simply wanted them to, hence why they have to falsify stories from them. From pretty much every "evil" leak that she supposedly had. The worse thing you can say is that some emails had the letter C on it and that Hillary is not against adapting to globalization. That's it, that's all the leaks actually show. The only reason they were damning is that people Bernie supporters kept fabricating meaning from them.
GH would be more willing to question your assertions there. I will simply say that evidently plenty of people thought otherwise.
|
On January 12 2017 01:47 Dan HH wrote:
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
you forgot that he ended with his signature line.
|
On January 12 2017 02:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 12 2017 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On January 12 2017 00:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 12 2017 00:37 LegalLord wrote:On January 12 2017 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 11 2017 19:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2017 18:50 Acrofales wrote:
There's two things here and neither are fake news. One isn't even journalism, it's just WikiLeaks on a different platform. BuzzFeed threw an unsourced, unverified document up and said "have fun". Assange is probably livid that he missed out on these clicks.
CNN, for once, did some reasonable reporting, assuming they aren't just inventing the intelligence briefing and their 2 official sources. That is not fake news, despite people not liking what is being said. CNN's base seems covered. Either they reported on a briefing about problematic Intel regarding Trump, or they reported intelligence officials being partisan hacks and briefing government based on unverified claptrap. Either way, that's a story worth telling. 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. 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. Because risotto recipes are what the outrage was about, rather than a distraction cooked up to distract from the fact that people were concerned about collusion, the GS speeches, and the like, rather than cooking. An email ordering pizza led to gunmen shooting up a Trump supporter's business. The emails revealed nothing, people simply wanted them to, hence why they have to falsify stories from them. From pretty much every "evil" leak that she supposedly had. The worse thing you can say is that some emails had the letter C on it and that Hillary is not against adapting to globalization. That's it, that's all the leaks actually show. The only reason they were damning is that people Bernie supporters kept fabricating meaning from them. GH would be more willing to question your assertions there. I will simply say that evidently plenty of people thought otherwise.
that people think otherwise means little.
it's been amply documented that people believe lots of things that are provably untrue.
it mostly just means people are idiots.
a real problem for democracy; especially when people push for more direct voting on things, and don't look at the actual results of such things or assess them carefully and accurately.
|
|
|
On January 12 2017 02:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 12 2017 01:02 LegalLord wrote:On January 12 2017 00:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 12 2017 00:37 LegalLord wrote:On January 12 2017 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 11 2017 19:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2017 18:50 Acrofales wrote:
There's two things here and neither are fake news. One isn't even journalism, it's just WikiLeaks on a different platform. BuzzFeed threw an unsourced, unverified document up and said "have fun". Assange is probably livid that he missed out on these clicks.
CNN, for once, did some reasonable reporting, assuming they aren't just inventing the intelligence briefing and their 2 official sources. That is not fake news, despite people not liking what is being said. CNN's base seems covered. Either they reported on a briefing about problematic Intel regarding Trump, or they reported intelligence officials being partisan hacks and briefing government based on unverified claptrap. Either way, that's a story worth telling. 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. 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. Because risotto recipes are what the outrage was about, rather than a distraction cooked up to distract from the fact that people were concerned about collusion, the GS speeches, and the like, rather than cooking. An email ordering pizza led to gunmen shooting up a Trump supporter's business. The emails revealed nothing, people simply wanted them to, hence why they have to falsify stories from them. From pretty much every "evil" leak that she supposedly had. The worse thing you can say is that some emails had the letter C on it and that Hillary is not against adapting to globalization. That's it, that's all the leaks actually show. The only reason they were damning is that people Bernie supporters kept fabricating meaning from them. GH would be more willing to question your assertions there. I will simply say that evidently plenty of people thought otherwise.
I don't disagree that there was disdain for the existence of the emails. I didn't get upset about the anger towards the emails until I started asking people to show me the emails that got them upset, the emails that prove her evil. And there weren't any, its always just GH saying shit like "obviously she wouldn't something like that out on paper" or "see that exchanged coworkers are having about disliking their opponent, obvious collusion there" etc...
And the more I asked the more they would tighten up and not show me the evidence that convinced them since they already had their conclusions evidence be damned.
|
On January 12 2017 02:24 LegalLord wrote:Dude, he's just putting it out there, not claiming it to be true. You can't fault him for it any more than you can fault poor, poor, maligned CNN and Buzzfeed for sharing what they discovered while noting that it is unverified.
What did you want CNN to do? Say the briefings never happened even though their sources said otherwise (looks like they definitely did happen at this point), or wait until the FBI completed its investigation, or what? I really think you equating CNN and Buzzfeed here is absurd.
Even xDaunt admitted this was the only way CNN could report this story.
|
I keep telling myself to start trading on Trump's criticism of individual companies. Press conference started shortly after 11 am.
![[image loading]](http://l3.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/8Yf09QyDhEoQy6RRbcZH4w--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NjUwO2g9NDQ0/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/Lockheed_Martin_is_sliding_after-ff5cefd64624eee91041b1c855239977)
|
Yep, it's looking likely that this story is a dud. CNN and Buzzfeed have fucked up badly. You can't beat Trump with raw innuendo like you can other politicians. You have to bring real evidence. Does anyone really doubt that this is all going to backfire spectacularly? And just against CNN and Buzzfeed, but against a lot of the media simply due to association? All of these organization are going to have a much harder time taking down Trump now when something more substantive is available to use as a smear against Trump.
|
I have my doubts on how much Trump will do that actually makes America great again, beyond SC justice and ACA and the border. But this was making press conferences great again and I'm glad it'll be more like this than Bush-era/GHWB-era conduct for four more years--eight if the opposition party and its media supporters continue to not learn lessons from their mistakes in 2015-2016 campaigning.
|
On January 12 2017 02:44 xDaunt wrote:Yep, it's looking likely that this story is a dud. CNN and Buzzfeed have fucked up badly. You can't beat Trump with raw innuendo like you can other politicians. You have to bring real evidence. Does anyone really doubt that this is all going to backfire spectacularly? And just against CNN and Buzzfeed, but against a lot of the media simply due to association? All of these organization are going to have a much harder time taking down Trump now when something more substantive is available to use as a smear against Trump.
If a person or organization (Hillary) is under FBI investigation, it gets in the news.
|
On January 12 2017 02:44 xDaunt wrote:Yep, it's looking likely that this story is a dud. CNN and Buzzfeed have fucked up badly. You can't beat Trump with raw innuendo like you can other politicians. You have to bring real evidence. Does anyone really doubt that this is all going to backfire spectacularly? And just against CNN and Buzzfeed, but against a lot of the media simply due to association? All of these organization are going to have a much harder time taking down Trump now when something more substantive is available to use as a smear against Trump.
It's amazing how differently two people can interpret the same information. To me this directly corroborates CNN's story in a specific detail, suggesting their intelligence sources are credible and the briefings probably did include these documents, yet to xDaunt it means the story is a dud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
