Res Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 @Augestein did you ever read the interview with his ghostwriter? I honestly feel as if it explains the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augestein Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 28 minutes ago, Res said: @Augestein did you ever read the interview with his ghostwriter? I honestly feel as if it explains the most. Wow. This is a pretty solid read. I'm not done, but this is something akin to answering my question so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) On 2/25/2017 at 6:00 AM, Lord Raven said: That article is referring to the dossier, which they simply publicized. The dossier exists, Trump and Obama were briefed on it, it was forwarded by a British intelligence agent and it was spread around by John McCain to the FBI. The article in question claimed that the report remains unverified, but it is being spread around journalism circles and various members of the US Government. That's not fake news. That's recklessness with sensitive material. So you believe that Trump actually hired hookers to piss on a bed in Russia a full 5.5 years before he decided to run for President because...? Because THAT is what Buzzfeed published and attempted to defend. I know that we're all partisan hacks here but come on, man. As for my opinion, I'd prefer that Trump just stop talking to all the media all together (includes Fox and Breitbart and pretty much everyone) and simply keep Tweeting. It drives people insane and maybe it'll teach the entire media complex how to do their jobs (you know, actually investigate shit). I love it. Edited February 27, 2017 by Comrade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) i mean, they put it forth, being very careful to constantly state that it was unverifiable and alleged, but compiled by a respected ex-MI6 agent. it's highly likely that agent at least believes it to be true. it wasn't even like they were asserting it to be true just to disparage Trump (though I'm sure they would love if it was verifiable). they just published the document and said "you can take a look at it" whether or not you believe they should have published an unverifiable report with some credence due to the person who wrote it is up to you Edited February 27, 2017 by Tryhard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Tryhard said: i mean, they put it forth, being very careful to constantly state that it was unverifiable and alleged, but compiled by a respected ex-MI6 agent. it's highly likely that agent at least believes it to be true. it wasn't even like they were asserting it to be true just to disparage Trump (though I'm sure they would love if it was verifiable). they just published the document and said "you can take a look at it" whether or not you believe they should have published an unverifiable report with some credence due to the person who wrote it is up to you No, they tried to pass off something entirely ridiculous as implied fact with absolutely no verification for the simple reason to smear Trump. There is a reason why NOBODY touched this dossier aside from Buzzfeed. NOBODY. Because it is almost assuredly not true because none of it can be proved in any way, shape or form. Imagine this. There is an article in your local newspaper which accuses you of the exact same thing but says "hey this isn't verifiable but we just want to let everyone know that you could have done this". You'd be pissed the fuck off and call it fake news. Or if this shit was made up about a politician who you like (say maybe Bernie Sanders as an example), you'd be calling that slander. But for Trump, it's fine to move the goalposts. That is what I call "fake news". Meanwhile, I'm actually really impressed by Trump. This would be why. In 50 years (when we're all dead), people are going to look at Trump like Conservatives today view Reagan. He is going to be a fucking folk hero. Edited February 27, 2017 by Comrade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ping Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 I wonder how the right would react in the following scenario: A former MI6 agent with an excellent reputation offers the NYT a dossier in which he claims that the Swedish secret service had filmed a sex tape of Bernie Sanders including some poop-related fetishes, hoping to pressure him into spreading the evil Euro-socialism to the US in case he got elected into office. The NYT responds that the dossier is bs and refuses to publish it or cover it. Now this is pure speculation on my part, but I would hazard a guess and say that most right-wing media would take that as proof that the EVIL EVIL MAINSTREAM MEDIA is once again trying to support the democrats and harm the GOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Honestly, I would treat it the exact same way as I treat this one. If it can't be proven and has been denied by the Sanders camp, it shouldn't be in print. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time the Crestfallen Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Comrade said: Meanwhile, I'm actually really impressed by Trump. This would be why. In 50 years (when we're all dead), people are going to look at Trump like Conservatives today view Reagan. He is going to be a fucking folk hero. So you mean they're going to treat him like a folk hero, despite the fact that he was by all accounts a terrible President? Funny how you mention Reagan, the man who: -Almost tripled the national debthttp://www.federalbudget.com/noble.html -Raised unemployment up to 10.8% during his first term. http://reagan.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003988 -Illegally sold weapons to Iran i.e. the Iran-Contra affair.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/ -Raised taxes 11 times while he was in officehttp://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133489113/Reagan-Legacy-Clouds-Tax-Record -Funded and trained the Islamic militant groups that would become the Taliban and Al Qaeda because fuck communismhttps://newsone.com/1205745/cia-osama-bin-laden-al-qaeda/ -Supported Apartheidhttps://newsone.com/1205745/cia-osama-bin-laden-al-qaeda/ -And lets not forget his shit response to the AIDS epidemichttp://www.vox.com/2015/12/1/9828348/ronald-reagan-hiv-aidshttp://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Reagan-s-AIDS-Legacy-Silence-equals-death-2751030.phphttps://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/10/ignoring_aids_the_reagan_years -Or how he basically stole $2.5/2.7 trillion from social securityhttp://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/http://alexanderhiggins.com/how-your-social-security-money-was-stolen-where-did-the-2-5-trillion-surplus-go/ So you're basically saying we get another Teflon President, who's going to be fucking awful but still treated like the second coming of Republican Jesus regardless of what he does. Great. Edited February 27, 2017 by The Blind Idiot God Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 They're all terrible but that's not the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time the Crestfallen Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, Comrade said: They're all terrible but that's not the point. You drew a direct comparison between Trump and Reagan, so it's a relevant talking point. Besides, I'd rather wait and see if this rumoured marijuana crackdown happens before making any calls about how authoritarian Trump is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Comrade said: They're all terrible but that's not the point. What is the point? In 50 years Trump will be remembered as a failed president, because his first month in office is a catastrophe. Anyone paying any bit of attention would realize that Trump is much more authoritarian socially than Obama, as is his VP, and as has been the Republican Party for years. Republican dominated state Senates are taking measures to suppress protests by conflating them with riots, by the way. 7 hours ago, Comrade said: No, they tried to pass off something entirely ridiculous as implied fact with absolutely no verification for the simple reason to smear Trump. There is a reason why NOBODY touched this dossier aside from Buzzfeed. NOBODY. Because it is almost assuredly not true because none of it can be proved in any way, shape or form. Imagine this. There is an article in your local newspaper which accuses you of the exact same thing but says "hey this isn't verifiable but we just want to let everyone know that you could have done this". You'd be pissed the fuck off and call it fake news. Or if this shit was made up about a politician who you like (say maybe Bernie Sanders as an example), you'd be calling that slander. But for Trump, it's fine to move the goalposts. That is what I call "fake news". You should read the article again: https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia Nothing in this article is untrue. In fact, the article itself is true; the dossier may or may not be true. Most places actually had this dossier, and Buzzfeed is the only one that released it; but it still made its rounds all around the government and various government officials. Plenty of government officials find it official enough to actually pass around. In the interest of transparency, it's worth pointing out with context - which Buzzfeed did. If this were released the week before the election, it would have influenced the election, regardless of how true it was. I mean, Comey openly stating that he was reopening the investigation and found no new evidence influenced the election, why wouldn't a dossier with information that may not be entirely fake? 6 hours ago, Comrade said: Honestly, I would treat it the exact same way as I treat this one. If it can't be proven and has been denied by the Sanders camp, it shouldn't be in print. Yeah fucking right, you thought Clinton would take our guns away without evidence. You don't care for evidence when it's against something you hate. You don't hate Sanders. Overall you're petty, and you have a stiffy for Trump that you still haven't come back and defended in any meaningful way. @The Blind Idiot God don't forget that he basically destroyed mental health facilities instead of reforming them. He didn't give a shit about mental health, which made his cause of death all the more ironic. Edited February 27, 2017 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Comrade said: No, they tried to pass off something entirely ridiculous as implied fact with absolutely no verification for the simple reason to smear Trump. There is a reason why NOBODY touched this dossier aside from Buzzfeed. NOBODY. Because it is almost assuredly not true because none of it can be proved in any way, shape or form. Imagine this. There is an article in your local newspaper which accuses you of the exact same thing but says "hey this isn't verifiable but we just want to let everyone know that you could have done this". You'd be pissed the fuck off and call it fake news. Or if this shit was made up about a politician who you like (say maybe Bernie Sanders as an example), you'd be calling that slander. But for Trump, it's fine to move the goalposts. That is what I call "fake news". Meanwhile, I'm actually really impressed by Trump. This would be why. In 50 years (when we're all dead), people are going to look at Trump like Conservatives today view Reagan. He is going to be a fucking folk hero. Pretty sure CNN originally ran the story, and places like MSNBC and Independent commented on it of their own volition even if they didn't run their own news stories on it. It was also deemed worthy enough to have countering news stories from more right-wing media that favoured Trump. The man has had very little time in office (in which he still is widely unpopular, which I don't believe Reagan was), but he's already shown himself to be willing to be more authoritarian than Obama ever was and I don't know how you can see otherwise. Even on the campaign trail he showed these aspects. But you won't want to talk about things like Sean Spicer's admission that they will be "greater enforcement" on recreational marijuana, and him shutting out the media or polls ("all negative polls are fake news") he doesn't want to hear about. 11 hours ago, ping said: I wonder how the right would react in the following scenario: A former MI6 agent with an excellent reputation offers the NYT a dossier in which he claims that the Swedish secret service had filmed a sex tape of Bernie Sanders including some poop-related fetishes, hoping to pressure him into spreading the evil Euro-socialism to the US in case he got elected into office. The NYT responds that the dossier is bs and refuses to publish it or cover it. Now this is pure speculation on my part, but I would hazard a guess and say that most right-wing media would take that as proof that the EVIL EVIL MAINSTREAM MEDIA is once again trying to support the democrats and harm the GOP. Don't forget to say that the guy is still in hiding. I'm not sure I would go into hiding over a libel ruse but I guess that just makes it more convincing... or something. Regardless, I'll drop it unless it becomes pertinent again. There's enough shit to roll your eyes at with Trump in more plain sight. Edited February 27, 2017 by Tryhard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flee Fleet! Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 20 hours ago, Lord Raven said: In 50 years Trump will be remembered as a failed president Actually makes me think whether in the next four years people are going to elect him again, if he runs for president again that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 We voted Bush twice so don't overestimate us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted March 4, 2017 Share Posted March 4, 2017 at the rate of this kind of #resistance, trump is def getting reelected Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time the Crestfallen Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 A bit late, but still worth bringing up.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/23/bannon-trump-administration-is-in-unending-battle-for-deconstruction-of-the-administrative-state/?utm_term=.c72bd949fa81 Guess we know why Trump's Cabinet is a raging dumpster-fire now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Water Mage Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 36 minutes ago, The Blind Idiot God said: A bit late, but still worth bringing up.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/23/bannon-trump-administration-is-in-unending-battle-for-deconstruction-of-the-administrative-state/?utm_term=.c72bd949fa81 Guess we know why Trump's Cabinet is a raging dumpster-fire now. Reading this article is making me think that those conspiracy theorists were onto something after all. But joking aside, this particular line: "partners in fighting on Trump’s behalf to transform Washington and the world order" This line in particular really rubbed me off the wrong way. It sorta reminded of those dystopian setting in fiction that have a ruined world ruled by a tyrant leader. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but they certainly could have worded that they wrong way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raumata Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 Could someone please explain to me what the contents of this supposed dossier on Pres.Trump were? Read that it's an alleged hoax from 4chan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 9 hours ago, Raumata said: Could someone please explain to me what the contents of this supposed dossier on Pres.Trump were? Read that it's an alleged hoax from 4chan. So "it's an alleged hoax" is really just taking one small part of the dossier and shitting on it. To start things off, the "hoax" part is the following - Mother Jones released a report about Donald Trump going to Russia to pay hookers to piss all over the bed of a hotel that the Obamas slept in. He called them "Golden Showers." This was in like late October. Some 4channer a week later said "oh yeah I told that to Christopher Steele [who wrote the dossier] and he believed me lolololol" so take from that what you will. The rest is about events that basically show that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russia's administration to spread propaganda and hack the DNC emails to sway the results of the election. To the extent where Trump probably sent payments to Russians and possibly said things like "if you do this for me, then I will lift the sanctions on Russia." The person who compiled the information in the dossier (which is unverified as of now) is Christopher Steele, who is considered a credible source in the intelligence community. We are fully aware that Russia was behind the spread of various degrees of propaganda in favor of the Trump campaign, the dossier outright states there is collusion. In the meantime, many of the sources from within Russia have been assassinated and Christopher Steele is in hiding because he feels his life is in danger from all of this. I hope to god the dossier is not true because the idea of Trump winning the election the way he did is sickening. If it is true, then it's actually extremely unprecedented in terms of the US election and I don't know if we would impeach Trump or something else entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raumata Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) Wow. Now I'm curious as to what sort of form that propaganda took on. Going to attempt to find and read this dossier myself. Edited March 6, 2017 by Raumata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Raumata said: Wow. Now I'm curious as to what sort of form that propaganda took on. Going to attempt to find and read this dossier myself. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html?utm_term=.41109c9bdd37 It's a shame that this dumb ass administration took the term "fake news" and ran with it to remind everyone he's a bitch. Anyway, Muslim ban Mk. II: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/06/516408650/trump-signs-new-order-blocking-arrivals-from-6-majority-muslim-countries?sc=tw Edited March 6, 2017 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 maybe libs shouldn't have been shouting a poorly defined term like "fake news" right before a lying authoritarian was about to become president Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flee Fleet! Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 19 hours ago, Lord Raven said: Anyway, Muslim ban Mk. II: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/06/516408650/trump-signs-new-order-blocking-arrivals-from-6-majority-muslim-countries?sc=tw seems to be less harsher now I guess. But I wonder if anyone is still going to protest against this ban? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Flee Fleet! said: seems to be less harsher now I guess. But I wonder if anyone is still going to protest against this ban? yes but not as much; it's still a shitty policy, it's just more well thought out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 How clueless can they continue to be? An iPhone costs as much as 1/2 a month of insurance for my family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.