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.
Looks fine to me. What he said about Cuba in particular makes sense. I think the man got way to much shit for his connections with Russia anyway. He was CEO of ExxonMobil so of course the man needs to have damn good relations with one of the biggest oil producers in the world. He has a different role now though so we'll see how he'll fill it in.
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 05:29 TheTenthDoc wrote: I'm glad we're spending as much time scrutinizing the motivations of the leakers as we did the motivations of the DNC hackers.
Not sure if that was sarcasm - we spent about the past six months talking about the leaks, who did it, and why - and we're talking about the motivations of these leakers now. Arguably it's the biggest story of the election other than the fact that Trump won.
Mostly just commenting that the same people bringing up motivations of these leakers argued the only thing that mattered was the DNC emails and discussing motivations was purely a smokescreen to avoid discussing the content (and spent months denying we should think Russia had anything to do with it, even after intelligence agencies said otherwise).
The difference? The emails were verified to be authentic documents.
And now we know that they order pizza, hang out with friends, shit talk in private, and talk about cooking recipes. Thank you wikileaks for sharing how absolutely normal the DNC is.
On January 12 2017 04:50 xDaunt wrote: Leave it to Glenn Greenwald to be the conscience of the American left:
IN JANUARY, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That warning was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction’s power even further.
This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”
Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing — eager — to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.
The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.
But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.
Beyond all that, there is no bigger favor that Trump opponents can do for him than attacking him with such lowly, shabby, obvious shams, recruiting large media outlets to lead the way. When it comes time to expose actual Trump corruption and criminality, who is going to believe the people and institutions who have demonstrated they are willing to endorse any assertions no matter how factually baseless, who deploy any journalistic tactic no matter how unreliable and removed from basic means of ensuring accuracy?
All of these toxic ingredients were on full display yesterday as the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document, compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents of Trump, accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts and salacious private conduct. The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so, too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts to undermine it. .... One can certainly object to Buzzfeed’s decision and, as the New York Times notes this morning, many journalists are doing so. It’s almost impossible to imagine a scenario where it’s justifiable for a news outlet to publish a totally anonymous, unverified, unvetted document filled with scurrilous and inflammatory allegations about which its own editor-in-chief says there “is serious reason to doubt the allegations,” on the ground that they want to leave it to the public to decide whether to believe it.
But even if one believes there is no such case where that is justified, yesterday’s circumstances presented the most compelling scenario possible for doing this. Once CNN strongly hinted at these allegations, it left it to the public imagination to conjure up the dirt Russia allegedly had to blackmail and control Trump. By publishing these accusations, BuzzFeed ended that speculation. More importantly, it allowed everyone to see how dubious this document is, one the CIA and CNN had elevated into some sort of grave national security threat.
CNN refused to specify what these allegations were on the ground that they could not “verify” them. But with this document in the hands of multiple media outlets, it was only a matter of time — a small amount of time — before someone would step up and publish the whole thing. Buzzfeed quickly obliged, airing all of the unvetted, anonymous claims about Trump.
Its editor-in-chief Ben Smith published a memo explaining that decision, saying that—- although there “is serious reason to doubt the allegations” — Buzzfeed in general “errs on the side of publication” and “Americans can make up their own minds about the allegations.” Publishing this document predictably produced massive traffic (and thus profit) for the site, with millions of people viewing the article and presumably reading the “dossier.”
....
THERE IS A REAL DANGER here that this maneuver can harshly backfire, to the great benefit of Trump and to the great detriment of those who want to oppose him. If any of the significant claims in this “dossier” turn out to be provably false — such as Cohen’s trip to Prague — many people will conclude, with Trump’s encouragement, that large media outlets (CNN and BuzzFeed) and anti-Trump factions inside the government (CIA) are deploying “Fake News” to destroy him. In the eyes of many people, that will forever discredit — render impotent — future journalistic exposés that are based on actual, corroborated wrongdoing.
Beyond that, the threat posed by submitting ourselves to the CIA and empowering it to reign supreme outside of the democratic process is — as Eisenhower warned — an even more severe danger. The threat of being ruled by unaccountable and unelected entities is self-evident and grave. That’s especially true when the entity behind which so many are rallying is one with a long and deliberate history of lying, propaganda, war crimes, torture, and the worst atrocities imaginable.
All of the claims about Russia’s interference in U.S. elections and ties to Trump should be fully investigated by a credible body, and the evidence publicly disclosed to the fullest extent possible. As my colleague Sam Biddle argued last week after disclosure of the farcical intelligence community report on Russia hacking — one which even Putin’s foes mocked as a bad joke — the utter lack of evidence for these allegations means “we need an independent, resolute inquiry.” But until then, assertions that are unaccompanied by evidence and disseminated anonymously should be treated with the utmost skepticism — not lavished with convenience-driven gullibility.
Most important of all, the legitimate and effective tactics for opposing Trump are being utterly drowned by these irrational, desperate, ad hoc crusades that have no cogent strategy and make his opponents appear increasingly devoid of reason and gravity. Right now, Trump’s opponents are behaving as media critic Adam Johnson described: as ideological jelly fish, floating around aimlessly and lost, desperately latching on to whatever barge randomly passes by.
There are solutions to Trump. They involve reasoned strategizing and patient focus on issues people actually care about. Whatever those solutions are, venerating the intelligence community, begging for its intervention, and equating their dark and dirty assertions as Truth are most certainly not among them. Doing that cannot possibly achieve any good, and is already doing much harm.
He's in bed with Wikileaks and by the way you're in bed with Trump colluding with a foreign government to further his chances in a US election.
If you're wondering how Democrats could lose in 2018/2020, it's listening to the leaders pushing this garbage and the people swallowing it whole.
Fantastic GH! Do you have the emails that showed you the proof that the DNC did any of the things you accused the DNC of doing? Any plans they eventually implemented, any instructions that was pushed forward?
Or do you just, you know, get upset at powerful women and only vote for ones you don't expect to win?
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'm ready for four more years of this:
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
So as said, you are misusing a definition and then when confronted on it you say you don't want to argue semantics...
That's one way to try and avoid losing an argument I guess.
No, I'm not avoiding the argument at all. The problem is that my opponents don't know how to argue the issue. Given that I'm feeling generous, let me provide a template for everyone to use that provides the basic structure for countering the label:
"X is not fake news, because [discuss in detail the propriety of the journalistic methods employed]."
That wasn't hard was it? Rotely arguing that "X is not fake news because you're misusing the term of fake news" is asinine, retarded, and a complete waste of everyone's time.
So to everyone who objects to my use of the term: stop whining and start making the proper argument.
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.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
So as said, you are misusing a definition and then when confronted on it you say you don't want to argue semantics...
That's one way to try and avoid losing an argument I guess.
No, I'm not avoiding the argument at all. The problem is that my opponents don't know how to argue the issue. Given that I'm feeling generous, let me provide a template for everyone to use that provides the basic structure for countering the label:
"X is not fake news, because [discuss in detail the propriety of the journalistic methods employed]."
That wasn't hard was it? Rotely arguing that "X is not fake news because you're misusing the term of fake news" is asinine, retarded, and a complete waste of everyone's time.
So to everyone who objects to my use of the term: stop whining and start making the proper argument.
All those things you're asking for are literally in the CNN article you are complaining about. They literally spell out everything for you if you had read it.
then any news outlet which brought this up arenothing more than salty, anti-trump editorialists who don't respect what true journalism is. end of story..
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
So as said, you are misusing a definition and then when confronted on it you say you don't want to argue semantics...
That's one way to try and avoid losing an argument I guess.
No, I'm not avoiding the argument at all. The problem is that my opponents don't know how to argue the issue. Given that I'm feeling generous, let me provide a template for everyone to use that provides the basic structure for countering the label:
"X is not fake news, because [discuss in detail the propriety of the journalistic methods employed]."
That wasn't hard was it? Rotely arguing that "X is not fake news because you're misusing the term of fake news" is asinine, retarded, and a complete waste of everyone's time.
So to everyone who objects to my use of the term: stop whining and start making the proper argument.
All those things you're asking for are literally in the CNN article you are complaining about. They literally spell out everything for you if you had read it.
In case you haven't noticed, CNN is getting panned by a lot of people -- including people on the left -- for publishing the story anyway. So excuse me if I'm less than inclined to accept CNN's assessment of its own conduct at face value.
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.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
I see you are avoiding criticism of some of the sites that you have quoted earlier, even when directly prompted. Is that intentional?
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
So as said, you are misusing a definition and then when confronted on it you say you don't want to argue semantics...
That's one way to try and avoid losing an argument I guess.
No, I'm not avoiding the argument at all. The problem is that my opponents don't know how to argue the issue. Given that I'm feeling generous, let me provide a template for everyone to use that provides the basic structure for countering the label:
"X is not fake news, because [discuss in detail the propriety of the journalistic methods employed]."
That wasn't hard was it? Rotely arguing that "X is not fake news because you're misusing the term of fake news" is asinine, retarded, and a complete waste of everyone's time.
So to everyone who objects to my use of the term: stop whining and start making the proper argument.
All those things you're asking for are literally in the CNN article you are complaining about. They literally spell out everything for you if you had read it.
He asks you to make a proper argument and the only thing you can come up with is "I'm sure that it was in the article but I'm too lazy to find it"? You could have made a strawman with a single point with the article and you would have put the same effort into it.
The CNN article is an accusation based on an unnamed source based on a classified memo and briefing. Its fake news to say that it means anything at all. Its fake news to say that Trump is responsible for anything at all because of it. Its fake news if its not a real news item but a global reporting agency reporting on hearsay and rumor.
On January 12 2017 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote: There were a lot of trash posts over the last 150+, but these were two of my favorites.
On January 12 2017 02:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 12 2017 02:34 LegalLord wrote:
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: [quote]
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 05:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On January 12 2017 05:38 LegalLord wrote:
On January 12 2017 05:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On January 12 2017 05:32 LegalLord wrote:
On January 12 2017 05:29 TheTenthDoc wrote: I'm glad we're spending as much time scrutinizing the motivations of the leakers as we did the motivations of the DNC hackers.
Not sure if that was sarcasm - we spent about the past six months talking about the leaks, who did it, and why - and we're talking about the motivations of these leakers now. Arguably it's the biggest story of the election other than the fact that Trump won.
Mostly just commenting that the same people bringing up motivations of these leakers argued the only thing that mattered was the DNC emails and discussing motivations was purely a smokescreen to avoid discussing the content (and spent months denying we should think Russia had anything to do with it, even after intelligence agencies said otherwise).
The difference? The emails were verified to be authentic documents.
And now we know that they order pizza, hang out with friends, shit talk in private, and talk about cooking recipes. Thank you wikileaks for sharing how absolutely normal the DNC is.
EDIT: forgot this one
On January 12 2017 05:06 Doodsmack wrote:
On January 12 2017 04:50 xDaunt wrote: Leave it to Glenn Greenwald to be the conscience of the American left:
IN JANUARY, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That warning was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction’s power even further.
This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”
Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing — eager — to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.
The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.
But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.
Beyond all that, there is no bigger favor that Trump opponents can do for him than attacking him with such lowly, shabby, obvious shams, recruiting large media outlets to lead the way. When it comes time to expose actual Trump corruption and criminality, who is going to believe the people and institutions who have demonstrated they are willing to endorse any assertions no matter how factually baseless, who deploy any journalistic tactic no matter how unreliable and removed from basic means of ensuring accuracy?
All of these toxic ingredients were on full display yesterday as the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document, compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents of Trump, accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts and salacious private conduct. The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so, too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts to undermine it. .... One can certainly object to Buzzfeed’s decision and, as the New York Times notes this morning, many journalists are doing so. It’s almost impossible to imagine a scenario where it’s justifiable for a news outlet to publish a totally anonymous, unverified, unvetted document filled with scurrilous and inflammatory allegations about which its own editor-in-chief says there “is serious reason to doubt the allegations,” on the ground that they want to leave it to the public to decide whether to believe it.
But even if one believes there is no such case where that is justified, yesterday’s circumstances presented the most compelling scenario possible for doing this. Once CNN strongly hinted at these allegations, it left it to the public imagination to conjure up the dirt Russia allegedly had to blackmail and control Trump. By publishing these accusations, BuzzFeed ended that speculation. More importantly, it allowed everyone to see how dubious this document is, one the CIA and CNN had elevated into some sort of grave national security threat.
CNN refused to specify what these allegations were on the ground that they could not “verify” them. But with this document in the hands of multiple media outlets, it was only a matter of time — a small amount of time — before someone would step up and publish the whole thing. Buzzfeed quickly obliged, airing all of the unvetted, anonymous claims about Trump.
Its editor-in-chief Ben Smith published a memo explaining that decision, saying that—- although there “is serious reason to doubt the allegations” — Buzzfeed in general “errs on the side of publication” and “Americans can make up their own minds about the allegations.” Publishing this document predictably produced massive traffic (and thus profit) for the site, with millions of people viewing the article and presumably reading the “dossier.”
....
THERE IS A REAL DANGER here that this maneuver can harshly backfire, to the great benefit of Trump and to the great detriment of those who want to oppose him. If any of the significant claims in this “dossier” turn out to be provably false — such as Cohen’s trip to Prague — many people will conclude, with Trump’s encouragement, that large media outlets (CNN and BuzzFeed) and anti-Trump factions inside the government (CIA) are deploying “Fake News” to destroy him. In the eyes of many people, that will forever discredit — render impotent — future journalistic exposés that are based on actual, corroborated wrongdoing.
Beyond that, the threat posed by submitting ourselves to the CIA and empowering it to reign supreme outside of the democratic process is — as Eisenhower warned — an even more severe danger. The threat of being ruled by unaccountable and unelected entities is self-evident and grave. That’s especially true when the entity behind which so many are rallying is one with a long and deliberate history of lying, propaganda, war crimes, torture, and the worst atrocities imaginable.
All of the claims about Russia’s interference in U.S. elections and ties to Trump should be fully investigated by a credible body, and the evidence publicly disclosed to the fullest extent possible. As my colleague Sam Biddle argued last week after disclosure of the farcical intelligence community report on Russia hacking — one which even Putin’s foes mocked as a bad joke — the utter lack of evidence for these allegations means “we need an independent, resolute inquiry.” But until then, assertions that are unaccompanied by evidence and disseminated anonymously should be treated with the utmost skepticism — not lavished with convenience-driven gullibility.
Most important of all, the legitimate and effective tactics for opposing Trump are being utterly drowned by these irrational, desperate, ad hoc crusades that have no cogent strategy and make his opponents appear increasingly devoid of reason and gravity. Right now, Trump’s opponents are behaving as media critic Adam Johnson described: as ideological jelly fish, floating around aimlessly and lost, desperately latching on to whatever barge randomly passes by.
There are solutions to Trump. They involve reasoned strategizing and patient focus on issues people actually care about. Whatever those solutions are, venerating the intelligence community, begging for its intervention, and equating their dark and dirty assertions as Truth are most certainly not among them. Doing that cannot possibly achieve any good, and is already doing much harm.
He's in bed with Wikileaks and by the way you're in bed with Trump colluding with a foreign government to further his chances in a US election.
If you're wondering how Democrats could lose in 2018/2020, it's listening to the leaders pushing this garbage and the people swallowing it whole.
Fantastic GH! Do you have the emails that showed you the proof that the DNC did any of the things you accused the DNC of doing? Any plans they eventually implemented, any instructions that was pushed forward?
Or do you just, you know, get upset at powerful women and only vote for ones you don't expect to win?
DNC/Hillary camp put a known cheater for Hillary in charge of the DNC (still currently in charge). That's one that frequently gets left out, or dismissed as no big deal.
Like are you parodying yourself with the random accusation of sexism?
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.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
I see you are avoiding criticism of some of the sites that you have quoted earlier, even when directly prompted. Is that intentional?
I don't think xDaunt is unwilling to criticize those sites. He has always said that "no one site gives the unquestionably valid truth." It's just pointless to address those criticisms right now because it doesn't detract from the point made.
Even shitty sources give good stuff sometimes. Yes, even WaPo.
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.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
So as said, you are misusing a definition and then when confronted on it you say you don't want to argue semantics...
That's one way to try and avoid losing an argument I guess.
No, I'm not avoiding the argument at all. The problem is that my opponents don't know how to argue the issue. Given that I'm feeling generous, let me provide a template for everyone to use that provides the basic structure for countering the label:
"X is not fake news, because [discuss in detail the propriety of the journalistic methods employed]."
That wasn't hard was it? Rotely arguing that "X is not fake news because you're misusing the term of fake news" is asinine, retarded, and a complete waste of everyone's time.
So to everyone who objects to my use of the term: stop whining and start making the proper argument.
Let's put aside for a second the fact that since you're the one who came up with the claim that the CNN article was an example of "fake news", the burden of proof lies on you -- I'll respond to your query: the CNN article was not an example of fake news because it made no false claims.
Your turn. Fake news present false claims/information as true, and are designed to deceive readers. I'm willing to put aside the matter of intent here to make your job even easier. Where does the CNN article present false claims/information as true?
On January 12 2017 06:18 Incognoto wrote: then any news outlet which brought this up arenothing more than salty, anti-trump editorialists who don't respect what true journalism is. end of story..
The end of story is when the doubling down upon being caught in the act stops. Issuing a retraction or airing an apology is somehow less preferred than reasserting that nothing was done wrong in journalism this day. It's admitting reputation damage versus holding out that none need occur.
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.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
I see you are avoiding criticism of some of the sites that you have quoted earlier, even when directly prompted. Is that intentional?
Yep, very much so. I'm disinclined to discount sources strictly on the basis of some "misconduct" (however you want to define it) that they may have engaged in previously. The reality is that there is no news outlet with completely clean hands. I'm far more interested in discussing issues on the merits. And frankly, I consider it a sign of intellectual weakness from many posters in this thread who routinely attack the sources as a matter of course (unless it's something very bad) and dodge the arguments on the merits.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
So as said, you are misusing a definition and then when confronted on it you say you don't want to argue semantics...
That's one way to try and avoid losing an argument I guess.
No, I'm not avoiding the argument at all. The problem is that my opponents don't know how to argue the issue. Given that I'm feeling generous, let me provide a template for everyone to use that provides the basic structure for countering the label:
"X is not fake news, because [discuss in detail the propriety of the journalistic methods employed]."
That wasn't hard was it? Rotely arguing that "X is not fake news because you're misusing the term of fake news" is asinine, retarded, and a complete waste of everyone's time.
So to everyone who objects to my use of the term: stop whining and start making the proper argument.
Let's put aside for a second the fact that since you're the one who came up with the claim that the CNN article was an example of "fake news", the burden of proof to support your claim lies on you -- I'll respond to your query: the CNN article was not an example of fake news because it made no false claims.
Your turn. Fake news present false claims as true, and is designed to deceive readers. I'm willing to put aside the matter of intent here to make your job even easier. Where does the CNN article present false claims as true?
The burden of proof lies with the accuser not the accused. He made a statement that what CNN posted was fake news. You accused him of misusing that word and that it wasn't fake news. Its up to you to say the difference between whats fake news and what CNN posted is.
The idea that fake can only mean not false is asinine and semantics. You don't know if the claims made are false or true and neither does anyone else here. Xdaunt is saying fake is the opposite of real. By that simple definition what hes saying what CNN posted was fake news because it wasn't news. It was a report based on unamed sources with hersay and rumor. The story has no accountable founding for the accusations its making. Its creating news based on accusations that can't be proven true or false.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
So as said, you are misusing a definition and then when confronted on it you say you don't want to argue semantics...
That's one way to try and avoid losing an argument I guess.
No, I'm not avoiding the argument at all. The problem is that my opponents don't know how to argue the issue. Given that I'm feeling generous, let me provide a template for everyone to use that provides the basic structure for countering the label:
"X is not fake news, because [discuss in detail the propriety of the journalistic methods employed]."
That wasn't hard was it? Rotely arguing that "X is not fake news because you're misusing the term of fake news" is asinine, retarded, and a complete waste of everyone's time.
So to everyone who objects to my use of the term: stop whining and start making the proper argument.
Let's put aside for a second the fact that since you're the one who came up with the claim that the CNN article was an example of "fake news", the burden of proof lies on you -- I'll respond to your query: the CNN article was not an example of fake news because it made no false claims.
Your turn. Fake news present false claims/information as true, and are designed to deceive readers. I'm willing to put aside the matter of intent here to make your job even easier. Where does the CNN article present false claims/information as true?
Well according to NBC news, the part about Trump being briefed on it. AKA their headline
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.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
I see you are avoiding criticism of some of the sites that you have quoted earlier, even when directly prompted. Is that intentional?
I don't think xDaunt is unwilling to criticize those sites. He has always said that "no one site gives the unquestionably valid truth." It's just pointless to address those criticisms right now because it doesn't detract from the point made.
Even shitty sources give good stuff sometimes. Yes, even WaPo.
But by making unquestionably partisan statements without admitting to the faults of one's own sources when prompted creates an nonconstructive climate. While I'm sure he's grateful for your or any defense, I am certain he can speak for himself. I am just pointing out that he can get that out of the way, and that he, in my opinion, should.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
So as said, you are misusing a definition and then when confronted on it you say you don't want to argue semantics...
That's one way to try and avoid losing an argument I guess.
No, I'm not avoiding the argument at all. The problem is that my opponents don't know how to argue the issue. Given that I'm feeling generous, let me provide a template for everyone to use that provides the basic structure for countering the label:
"X is not fake news, because [discuss in detail the propriety of the journalistic methods employed]."
That wasn't hard was it? Rotely arguing that "X is not fake news because you're misusing the term of fake news" is asinine, retarded, and a complete waste of everyone's time.
So to everyone who objects to my use of the term: stop whining and start making the proper argument.
Let's put aside for a second the fact that since you're the one who came up with the claim that the CNN article was an example of "fake news", the burden of proof lies on you -- I'll respond to your query: the CNN article was not an example of fake news because it made no false claims.
Your turn. Fake news present false claims as true, and are designed to deceive readers. I'm willing to put aside the matter of intent here to make your job even easier. Where does the CNN article present false claims as true?
Sorry, dude. You're arguing with a lawyer who knows semantics arguments when he sees them. I've made it very clear that fake news is more than just making false factual claims in a report, yet here you are once again trying to box me in with semantics. Not interested.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
I see you are avoiding criticism of some of the sites that you have quoted earlier, even when directly prompted. Is that intentional?
I don't think xDaunt is unwilling to criticize those sites. He has always said that "no one site gives the unquestionably valid truth." It's just pointless to address those criticisms right now because it doesn't detract from the point made.
Even shitty sources give good stuff sometimes. Yes, even WaPo.
But by making unquestionably partisan statements without admitting to the faults of one's own sources when prompted creates an nonconstructive climate. While I'm sure he's grateful for your or any defense, I am certain he can speak for himself. I am just pointing out that he can get that out of the way, and that he, in my opinion, should.
He wouldn't be the only one who posts sources that are questionable. Everyone does - it's just not worth giving a blanket dismissal of websites you don't like.
He did give you a response by the way - I just feel it reasonable to add my two cents on that issue.
EPT
