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.
On January 12 2017 02:45 Danglars wrote: 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 02:45 Danglars wrote: 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.
I see little evidence that removing aca woudl be creditable to trump, or that the replacemenet system will be any better. nor that the border changes will do anything actually productive.
also, what do you mean by "great again"? what actual metrics are you using to measure greatness? what was better in the past specifically that could be improved now? in what way is america not great now?
it's a pity still that the republicans ignored the constitution to delay the supreme court so they could have a chacne to get a an extra person on it. damaging the institutions for political gain
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.
Dud? Did he not just say that he did indeed bring these materials to the FBI? The thing in doubt is the specific contents, not whether they exist. It appears very likely that this stuff exists, just a matter of what it is.
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.
The proper way to report the story, if you must do it (which you don't), is to make it clear at the very outset of the article that the allegations are completely unsubstantiated and unwarranted. CNN didn't do this.
On January 12 2017 02:45 Danglars wrote: 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 02:14 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.
The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth called. They want their fake news back.
What about Trump's deflecting of conflict of interest by claiming to donate foreign profits to the treasury?
* Profits are not Revenue (see Hollywood). * Trump has not followed through on donations in previous instances or has used the Trump Foundation to avoid paying. * This still doesn't clear up any divestment of interest in his business. It just pretends like it is ok now.
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.
The proper way to report the story, if you must do it (which you don't), is to make it clear at the very outset of the article that the allegations are completely unsubstantiated and unwarranted. CNN didn't do this.
Uh, the allegations are from an MI6 operative (definitively not a 4chan poster at this point). I think "completely unwarranted" would be disingenuous. And they do repeat twice they are being investigated and unverified and do not report specific allegations as a result.
Don't you dare equate CNN's reporting on this with Buzzfeed's just releasing the docs, that's as silly as the people branding Breitbart "fake news."
On January 12 2017 02:45 Danglars wrote: 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 02:45 Danglars wrote: 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.
I see little evidence that removing aca woudl be creditable to trump, or that the replacemenet system will be any better. nor that the border changes will do anything actually productive.
also, what do you mean by "great again"? what actual metrics are you using to measure greatness? what was better in the past specifically that could be improved now? in what way is america not great now?
it's a pity still that the republicans ignored the constitution to delay the supreme court so they could have a chacne to get a an extra person on it. damaging the institutions for political gain
I know you think that about the border and ACA, don't worry. But in the minds of people that think differently to you, the first three would be productive steps taken to maga. I have the utmost confidence you know already or can rediscover the arguments made about the damage caused by the ACA, large-scale illegal immigration across the porous southern border, and the activist Supreme Court.
I mean, if Republicans ignored the constitution, you must admit the Democrats did it first (Biden particularly). No need to be hyperpartisan. I leave it as an exercise for you to discover where in the constitution it says who makes the rules for he Senate conducting its business, part of which is the confirmation or rejection of nominees to the highest court.
On January 12 2017 02:45 Danglars wrote: 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.
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.
The proper way to report the story, if you must do it (which you don't), is to make it clear at the very outset of the article that the allegations are completely unsubstantiated and unwarranted. CNN didn't do this.
Uh, the allegations are from an MI6 operative (definitively not a 4chan poster at this point). I think "completely unwarranted" would be disingenuous. And they do repeat twice they are being investigated and unverified and do not report specific allegations as a result.
Don't you dare equate CNN's reporting on this with Buzzfeed's just releasing the docs, that's as silly as the people branding Breitbart "fake news."
I believe it was a "former MI6 operative" who now runs a PI service that was retained by opponents of Trump to dig up dirt on him.
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.
The proper way to report the story, if you must do it (which you don't), is to make it clear at the very outset of the article that the allegations are completely unsubstantiated and unwarranted. CNN didn't do this.
Uh, the allegations are from an MI6 operative (definitively not a 4chan poster at this point). I think "completely unwarranted" would be disingenuous. And they do repeat twice they are being investigated and unverified and do not report specific allegations as a result.
Don't you dare equate CNN's reporting on this with Buzzfeed's just releasing the docs, that's as silly as the people branding Breitbart "fake news."
I believe it was a "former MI6 operative" who now runs a PI service that was retained by opponents of Trump to dig up dirt on him.
Yes, you're correct. But I still take issue with "completely unwarranted." If they were "completely unwarranted" I am skeptical they would have made it into the confidential report.
At least you've moved into the stage where you accept there were definitely memos and everything in CNN's reporting is true, though.
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.
The proper way to report the story, if you must do it (which you don't), is to make it clear at the very outset of the article that the allegations are completely unsubstantiated and unwarranted. CNN didn't do this.
Uh, the allegations are from an MI6 operative (definitively not a 4chan poster at this point). I think "completely unwarranted" would be disingenuous. And they do repeat twice they are being investigated and unverified and do not report specific allegations as a result.
Don't you dare equate CNN's reporting on this with Buzzfeed's just releasing the docs, that's as silly as the people branding Breitbart "fake news."
I believe it was a "former MI6 operative" who now runs a PI service that was retained by opponents of Trump to dig up dirt on him.
Which is still not a keyboard hero on 4chan as you (and NukeD) were claiming yesterday.
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.
The true information that CNN reported on was that trump was briefed ON MEMOS. CNN can't verify what the memos are nor what they contained. This means that what Trump was briefed on is rumor and hearsay.
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.
Comey's letter is in a different world considering it was in response to an already made public investigation. The briefing and the memos in question are not public and have nothing behind the allegation of what they contain(ed). They could have been in truth about anything else and nothing would change about what CNN reported on thats the problem.
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.
The true information that CNN reported on was that trump was briefed ON MEMOS. CNN can't verify what the memos are nor what they contained. This means that what Trump was briefed on is rumor and hearsay.
The same CNN sources saying the briefing occurred corroborated that a 2-page synopsis of the oppo research from the MI6 agent was in the briefing.
CNN has confirmed that the synopsis was included in the documents that were presented to Mr. Trump but cannot confirm if it was discussed in his meeting with the intelligence chiefs.
On January 12 2017 02:45 Danglars wrote: 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.
I see little evidence that removing aca woudl be creditable to trump, or that the replacemenet system will be any better. nor that the border changes will do anything actually productive.
also, what do you mean by "great again"? what actual metrics are you using to measure greatness? what was better in the past specifically that could be improved now? in what way is america not great now?
it's a pity still that the republicans ignored the constitution to delay the supreme court so they could have a chacne to get a an extra person on it. damaging the institutions for political gain
I know you think that about the border and ACA, don't worry. But in the minds of people that think differently to you, the first three would be productive steps taken to maga. I have the utmost confidence you know already or can rediscover the arguments made about the damage caused by the ACA, large-scale illegal immigration across the porous southern border, and the activist Supreme Court.
I mean, if Republicans ignored the constitution, you must admit the Democrats did it first (Biden particularly). No need to be hyperpartisan. I leave it as an exercise for you to discover where in the constitution it says who makes the rules for he Senate conducting its business, part of which is the confirmation or rejection of nominees to the highest court.
i'm not being hyperpartisan, you are biden also didn't in fact do it, not like the republicans did here. that's a canard they feed people so they feel better about their improper decision. the senate didn't confirm or reject him, they didn't address it at all, which is a patent violation of the system. they abjectly refused to considre the matter, which is clearly improper.
i think it about the border and the ACA because i'm correct. more border enforcement might be fine and reasonable, the wall is dumb. arguments have been made about the ACA, an actual factual look at the evidence shows it's unimpressive and poor, helps some and hurts others a little bit. making a superior replacement would be easy from a design standpoint, not so easy politically. the ACA did fix some things, and it's not at all clear that what's done will be better. and the notion of an "activist" supreme court is just the usual partisan nonsense not actually based in reality. you also failed to answer the core questions on waht can even constitute maga. so i'll assume you're just like the 85% or so of americans who have opinions but have a poor and wrong factual basis for their beliefs, heavily covered by partisan bias.
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.
why do you keep saying that berniebros invented pizzagate? did a berniebro shoot up the restaurant?
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.
The proper way to report the story, if you must do it (which you don't), is to make it clear at the very outset of the article that the allegations are completely unsubstantiated and unwarranted. CNN didn't do this.
Uh, the allegations are from an MI6 operative (definitively not a 4chan poster at this point). I think "completely unwarranted" would be disingenuous. And they do repeat twice they are being investigated and unverified and do not report specific allegations as a result.
Don't you dare equate CNN's reporting on this with Buzzfeed's just releasing the docs, that's as silly as the people branding Breitbart "fake news."
I believe it was a "former MI6 operative" who now runs a PI service that was retained by opponents of Trump to dig up dirt on him.
Yes, you're correct. But I still take issue with "completely unwarranted." If they were "completely unwarranted" I am skeptical they would have made it into the confidential report.
At least you've moved into the stage where you accept there were definitely memos and everything in CNN's reporting is true, though.
Of course it's completely unwarranted. These memos have been making the rounds for six months. Virtually all relevant media outlets have had them more months -- even during the campaign. Yet none of them saw fit to run the story until CNN and Buzzfeed decided to yesterday. That should tell you all that you need to know regarding the propriety of how this story has been reported. The CNN story is of the same quality as a gossip column.
As for the memos, I have no doubt that they were showed to Trump in the context of "as an fyi, this is the disinformation that is being spread around about you."
On January 12 2017 02:45 Danglars wrote: 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.
I see little evidence that removing aca woudl be creditable to trump, or that the replacemenet system will be any better. nor that the border changes will do anything actually productive.
also, what do you mean by "great again"? what actual metrics are you using to measure greatness? what was better in the past specifically that could be improved now? in what way is america not great now?
it's a pity still that the republicans ignored the constitution to delay the supreme court so they could have a chacne to get a an extra person on it. damaging the institutions for political gain
I know you think that about the border and ACA, don't worry. But in the minds of people that think differently to you, the first three would be productive steps taken to maga. I have the utmost confidence you know already or can rediscover the arguments made about the damage caused by the ACA, large-scale illegal immigration across the porous southern border, and the activist Supreme Court.
I mean, if Republicans ignored the constitution, you must admit the Democrats did it first (Biden particularly). No need to be hyperpartisan. I leave it as an exercise for you to discover where in the constitution it says who makes the rules for he Senate conducting its business, part of which is the confirmation or rejection of nominees to the highest court.
i'm not being hyperpartisan, you are biden also didn't in fact do it, not like the republicans did here. that's a canard they feed people so they feel better about their improper decision. the senate didn't confirm or reject him, they didn't address it at all, which is a patent violation of the system. they abjectly refused to considre the matter, which is clearly improper.
i think it about the border and the ACA because i'm correct. more border enforcement might be fine and reasonable, the wall is dumb. arguments have been made about the ACA, an actual factual look at the evidence shows it's unimpressive and poor, helps some and hurts others a little bit. making a superior replacement would be easy from a design standpoint, not so easy politically. the ACA did fix some things, and it's not at all clear that what's done will be better. and the notion of an "activist" supreme court is just the usual partisan nonsense not actually based in reality. you also failed to answer the core questions on waht can even constitute maga. so i'll assume you're just like the 85% or so of americans who have opinions but have a poor and wrong factual basis for their beliefs, heavily covered by partisan bias.
"activist" judges is a metaphysical concept, transcendental nonsense. conservatives love their metaphysics. it would be nice if dangles just came out and said that he can't wait for judges to overturn roe v wade. i'd even appreciate some euphemistic "states' rights" blabber. but "activist" judges is just so deliberately provocative, and in that sense slefin is right to call it partisan
EPT
