Author Topic: United States of Russia?  (Read 23604 times)

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #150 on: January 09, 2017, 08:18:39 AM »

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)

I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.

That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)

Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)

I recognize that tone is hard to read online. So I am going to not assume that you are trying to be condescending by telling me things as though I do not know them. Though I will admit it's quite difficult, given your first parenthetical remark.

« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 08:32:11 AM by Kris »
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

oldtoyota

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2947
  • FIRE 2019
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #151 on: January 09, 2017, 05:06:25 PM »
those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?

I'm less upset about the release of emails, though I would have preferred they released emails from BOTH sides of the election. 

I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

I thought Russia also got emails from the Republicans, and there was concern that Republicans could be blackmailed. I wish I could recall where I read that. I assume it was conjecture, because how would someone know for certain until such emails are released.

The point is that it seems easy enough for the Russians to hack large organizations and it seems like they would hack the RNC, too.


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #152 on: January 09, 2017, 10:09:48 PM »

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)

I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.

That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)

Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)

Great points. There are many examples of rights of the minorities that should be protected against the will of the majority.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 837
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #153 on: January 10, 2017, 06:52:59 AM »

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)

I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.

That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)

Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)

Slavery was abolished under the 13 Amendment. In order to ratify this amendment, it would require a proposal by Congress and approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. Three-fourths technically is a majority.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #154 on: January 10, 2017, 11:56:36 AM »

There isn't a vacuum. There is, however: concerted voter suppression, fake news, Russian interference, the absolute shit "Citizens United" ruling, and a stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us and actually allows them to state, with no irony whatsoever, that the "popular" vote is not the will of "the people."


> stupid-as-shit retrograde electoral college that perpetuates the notion that rural white voters are more important than the rest of us

The electoral college ensures the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, New York and California will ALWAYS decide the election. For those of us that don't share your political views, what is the point in voting at all? There are more people in New York City than all of Oklahoma. We might as well not care. The electoral college gives us some voice.

Before you start accusing me of being a rural white male, I am a college educated brown immigrant :)

Also, rigging elections will be a lot easier with popular vote - I've seen it happen in my former country.

I understand how it works. I just don't agree with it.

Why should the majority of voters be held hostage by a minority who "doesn't share their political views"?

(This is a mostly rhetorical question. In my mind, the answer is obvious: they should not be.)

I hate to say this, but America is not a democracy (you know the stereotype about Americans not knowing enough about their own country...its true), its a Constitutional Republic. Which means, the majority does not get to decide everything.

That being said, you are free to dislike or disagree. That's your right as an American :)

Food for thought - Imagine what would happen if the majority wanted slavery :)

Slavery was abolished under the 13 Amendment. In order to ratify this amendment, it would require a proposal by Congress and approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. Three-fourths technically is a majority.
Majority of the legislatures but not the majority of the population. 99% of the population could be for or against something. It doesn't matter when it comes to ratifying an amendment or even electing a president, especially if one candidate fails to get 270 electoral votes. A candidate could technically become president with under 200k popular votes and with only 3 electoral votes.

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1911
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #155 on: January 10, 2017, 03:49:42 PM »
those on the left screaming about Russia influencing our election/politics by releasing emails written by the left.  I mean, if you find the emails so destabilizing when released...why did you write them?

I'm less upset about the release of emails, though I would have preferred they released emails from BOTH sides of the election. 

I'm more upset about the apparent coordination between the Trump campaign staff and the Russian hackers doing the leaking.  This wasn't just a case of a hostile foreign power trying to sway an election, it was a case of a US candidate collaborating with a hostile foreign power to win an election.

I thought Russia also got emails from the Republicans, and there was concern that Republicans could be blackmailed. I wish I could recall where I read that. I assume it was conjecture, because how would someone know for certain until such emails are released.

The point is that it seems easy enough for the Russians to hack large organizations and it seems like they would hack the RNC, too.

Comey stated that the Russians also hacked RNC computers. The FBI would learn this from computer forensics.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hacked-russia/

Quote from: CNN
Top intelligence officials indicated on Tuesday that the GOP was also a Russian hacking target but that none of the information obtained was leaked.

To further what Sol wrote, there is suspicion that Trump was indeed collaborating with Russians.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html

Quote from: CNN
The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.


Freedom2016

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #156 on: January 10, 2017, 10:18:12 PM »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5003
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #157 on: January 10, 2017, 11:02:20 PM »
Why is this suddenly back in the news?  We already knew that Trump campaign stuff was having regular conversations with Russian intelligence.  We knew that back in May of 2016.  Remember Paul Manafort?

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #159 on: January 10, 2017, 11:10:04 PM »
Why is this suddenly back in the news?  We already knew that Trump campaign stuff was having regular conversations with Russian intelligence.  We knew that back in May of 2016.  Remember Paul Manafort?

That's not the kind of relationship that the Buzzfeed article alleges, Sol.  Yes, we know that Trump has ties with Russian billionaires, and that he adores Putin.  But this article publishes a "dossier" supposedly compiled by a retired British spy on rather deep political ties, Watergate style, including claiming that Trump has some bizarre sexual preferences that Russia supposedly indulges him with.  If it were at all verifiable, some of these things would have prevented me from voting at all, but they aren't verifiable, and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this even though they admit that they can't support it.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5003
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #160 on: January 10, 2017, 11:11:59 PM »
Because the rest of us checked it, probably.  It's fake news...

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-error-laden-unverifiable-trump-russia-claim/

Well, Trump tweeted that it was fake news but CNN disagrees with you.  http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html 

And most of this stuff has been circulating in the intelligence network for months now.  The FBI has them.  A bunch of senators with security posts have known about it.  Obama and Trump both have copies.

The part that is most upsetting isn't that Trump paid some hookers to pee on each other.  Whatever man, pee away.  The upsetting part is the detailed history of how Russian intelligence has been cultivating Trump as an unwitting asset for the past five years.  His personality analysis, pressure points, successful past motivators of desired behavior, that sort of thing.  It's the standard way the KGB (and the US, for that matter) goes about controlling a person who may turn out to be useful to them.

edit:  Wait a second, did you seriously just RETWEET trump's tweet of that link, like to the forum?  You're not making yourself look like a credible analyst of this issue if your deep-dive perspective is to literally retweet the Trumpster.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 12:32:23 AM by sol »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #161 on: January 10, 2017, 11:26:55 PM »
Because the rest of us checked it, probably.  It's fake news...

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-error-laden-unverifiable-trump-russia-claim/

Well, Trump tweeted that it was fake news but CNN disagrees with you.  http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html 

And most of this stuff has been circulating in the intelligence network for months now.  The FBI has them.  A bunch of senators with security posts have known about it.  Obama and Trump both have copies.

The part that is most upsetting isn't that Trump paid some hookers to pee on each other.  Whatever man, pee away.  The upsetting part is the detailed history of how Russian intelligence has been cultivating Trump as an unwitting asset for the past five years.  His personality analysis, pressure points, successful past motivators of desired behavior, that sort of thing.  It's the standard way the KGB (and the US, for that matter) goes about controlling a person who may turn out to be useful to them.

Umm... CNN reports that nothing is verified and that one of the driving reasons this report was given out to certain people was not that these rumors were true (which they may or may not be) but merely that this information was floating around, and the affected parties should know this.  Even buzzfeed points out that there are errors in basic facts in some of these reports.

Reminds me of the Hillary scandals - when Trump is charged with Treason for colluding with a foreign power against America, then I'll support him being impeached and removed from office. Until then, he's just a slimeball tv personality who got elected President.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5003
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #162 on: January 11, 2017, 12:29:36 AM »
and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this

Kind of like wikleaks did for publishing DNC emails given to them by Russian intelligence?

I don't think Republicans have much of a leg to stand on, if "this is a breach of journalistic vetting responsibilities" is going to be their defense on this one.  They just spend the last year crying about how "the American people have a right to know" anything and everything, regardless of source or credibility.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 12:33:09 AM by sol »

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #163 on: January 11, 2017, 01:05:07 AM »
and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this

Kind of like wikleaks did for publishing DNC emails given to them by Russian intelligence?


Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol.  Who do you believe, Sol?  Wikileaks themselves, or the CIA?  If you believe either, why?  Has Wikileaks ever given you cause to distrust them?  Has the CIA?
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #164 on: January 11, 2017, 01:08:36 AM »
Because the rest of us checked it, probably.  It's fake news...

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-error-laden-unverifiable-trump-russia-claim/

edit:  Wait a second, did you seriously just RETWEET trump's tweet of that link, like to the forum?  You're not making yourself look like a credible analyst of this issue if your deep-dive perspective is to literally retweet the Trumpster.

No, I wasn't even aware that Trump tweeted anything about it.  I don't make his regular rants part of my day, but I find it interesting that you knew that.

And no, CNN didn't dispute that it was unverified.  So, fake news.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #165 on: January 11, 2017, 01:09:27 AM »
and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this

Kind of like wikleaks did for publishing DNC emails given to them by Russian intelligence?

I don't think Republicans have much of a leg to stand on, if "this is a breach of journalistic vetting responsibilities" is going to be their defense on this one.  They just spend the last year crying about how "the American people have a right to know" anything and everything, regardless of source or credibility.

And so begins the race to the bottom... supported by all parties.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 837
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #166 on: January 11, 2017, 05:28:32 AM »
I don't know what's fact or what's fiction. Part of me is truly concerned how Trump's supporters still continue to support him and thus the actions surrounding him. They still truly see him as a demi-god (heck Trump said so himself). And part of me is admittedly laughing at how quickly I think Trump is going to be impeached. Is there a an entry in the Guinness World Records for this?

cliffhanger

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #167 on: January 11, 2017, 05:49:21 AM »
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet (contains the intel docs):


https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg


When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news? Unlikely. I bet some troll wrote this dossier as it feeds into the worst of what liberals already believe about Trump.

Guys.. this is just feeding into the legitimacy of a Trump presidency. When the same news organizations that publish this crap then turn around and blab about fake news, it gives Trump legitimate ammo to use against them. They're already starting to campaign for reelection...

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4217
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #168 on: January 11, 2017, 06:02:25 AM »
and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this

Kind of like wikleaks did for publishing DNC emails given to them by Russian intelligence?


Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol.  Who do you believe, Sol?  Wikileaks themselves, or the CIA?  If you believe either, why? Has Wikileaks ever given you cause to distrust them?  Has the CIA?
Yes

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 837
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #169 on: January 11, 2017, 07:17:44 AM »
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet (contains the intel docs):


https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.yoAMJJ9leq#.qsnGOOM2Lg


When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news?Unlikely. I bet some troll wrote this dossier as it feeds into the worst of what liberals already believe about Trump.

Guys.. this is just feeding into the legitimacy of a Trump presidency. When the same news organizations that publish this crap then turn around and blab about fake news, it gives Trump legitimate ammo to use against them. They're already starting to campaign for reelection...

Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.




golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1337
  • Location: MA
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #170 on: January 11, 2017, 08:00:18 AM »
The story here is that Comey chose to speak publically 10 days before an election about emails on a computer of which he did not know the contents of or if they had any bearing on anything related to HRC.  At the same time, he knew that this information about Trump being compromised, even if not verified, existed.  He chose to release the email information, which turned out to be nothing, but not the Russia stuff, which may or may not turn out to be nothing.  The FBI is playing favorites with unsubstantiated information, and that sucks. 

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4217
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #171 on: January 11, 2017, 08:01:44 AM »
The story here is that Comey chose to speak publically 10 days before an election about emails on a computer of which he did not know the contents of or if they had any bearing on anything related to HRC.  At the same time, he knew that this information about Trump being compromised, even if not verified, existed.  He chose to release the email information, which turned out to be nothing, but not the Russia stuff, which may or may not turn out to be nothing.  The FBI is playing favorites with unsubstantiated information, and that sucks.
Which I think does mean the president can fire him..... But then is the person who Trump would appoint worse?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5003
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #172 on: January 11, 2017, 08:27:31 AM »
When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news?

Did Trump ever apologize for all of the times he said "Some people are saying..." and then repeated some horrible horrible lie?  This has been his MO all year, to use vague internet rumors to smear his opponents.  I think it's only fair to play on his level.

Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol.  Who do you believe, Sol?

Have you even been reading the news?  I believe the 16 US intelligence agencies who have already identified the go-between that Russia used to leak information to Wikileaks.  Russia uncovered the information and then passed it on.  Wikileaks didn't (at the time) know for sure that the information came from Russia, because they themselves didn't get it from the Kremlin.  But it's disingenuous to say that the use of an intermediary absolves Russia of responsibility for the leak, isn't it?

Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

This isn't fake news.  Fake news is a story that is based on something that didn't happen.  This is a story about an actual intelligence report, of questionable credibility.  It's still a real document.  It really exists, and is really under investigation, and has really been presented to Congress and to the Presidents, was really concealed during the election while other information of questionable credibility was really released, and that's what the story is about.  Heck, the (not fake) story even discusses the possibility that the intelligence report could be fake, in part or in whole. 

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not. 
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 08:34:10 AM by sol »

llorona

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #173 on: January 11, 2017, 08:28:10 AM »
Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

Unverified does not necessarily mean untrue.

Mother Jones covered Russia back in October: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump

Politico dug into some of this back in September: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/the-mystery-of-trumps-man-in-moscow-214283

Timodeus

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #174 on: January 11, 2017, 08:48:28 AM »
Reading through the dossier now. Very entertaining, though of course we don't know if its true. The wording and style of the author appear British to me (latin phrases, British spelling). At this point everything is speculation, but what I find interesting is Trump's response (Russia told me it's not true!). It's almost like he's trying to make the speculation stick (the dossier mentions drawing attention away from other scandals) to cover up even larger scandals. My own speculation: if this attention persists and doesn't let up, we could be looking, thankfully, at a very short presidency. Watergate dragged on for years, but Nixon didn't finish his second term. Presidents have been impeached for less.

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 837
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #175 on: January 11, 2017, 09:30:28 AM »
Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

Unverified does not necessarily mean untrue.

Mother Jones covered Russia back in October: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump

Politico dug into some of this back in September: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/the-mystery-of-trumps-man-in-moscow-214283

Absolutely and I never claimed as such. I think the news outlet was just reporting what it has while saying "hey we can't verify this." Honestly would it be surprising if it were true? And would it really change the minds of any Trump supporter? I mean they have made it this far ignoring his plethora of lies and deceit, I don't think it would change their minds. Might kick start the impeachment proceedings. Fingers crossed. 

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 837
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #176 on: January 11, 2017, 09:33:20 AM »
When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news?

Did Trump ever apologize for all of the times he said "Some people are saying..." and then repeated some horrible horrible lie?  This has been his MO all year, to use vague internet rumors to smear his opponents.  I think it's only fair to play on his level.

Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol.  Who do you believe, Sol?

Have you even been reading the news?  I believe the 16 US intelligence agencies who have already identified the go-between that Russia used to leak information to Wikileaks.  Russia uncovered the information and then passed it on.  Wikileaks didn't (at the time) know for sure that the information came from Russia, because they themselves didn't get it from the Kremlin.  But it's disingenuous to say that the use of an intermediary absolves Russia of responsibility for the leak, isn't it?

Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

This isn't fake news.  Fake news is a story that is based on something that didn't happen.  This is a story about an actual intelligence report, of questionable credibility.  It's still a real document.  It really exists, and is really under investigation, and has really been presented to Congress and to the Presidents, was really concealed during the election while other information of questionable credibility was really released, and that's what the story is about.  Heck, the (not fake) story even discusses the possibility that the intelligence report could be fake, in part or in whole. 

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

Absolutely I agree Sol. I think folks are going to start labeling everything as fake news now even if it boils down to them just simply not agreeing with it.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4217
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #177 on: January 11, 2017, 09:39:23 AM »
Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

Unverified does not necessarily mean untrue.

Mother Jones covered Russia back in October: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump

Politico dug into some of this back in September: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/the-mystery-of-trumps-man-in-moscow-214283

Absolutely and I never claimed as such. I think the news outlet was just reporting what it has while saying "hey we can't verify this." Honestly would it be surprising if it were true? And would it really change the minds of any Trump supporter? I mean they have made it this far ignoring his plethora of lies and deceit, I don't think it would change their minds. Might kick start the impeachment proceedings. Fingers crossed.
Congressional GOP members already knew about this.  They don't care.  They are willing to put party in front of country.  So I doubt he will ever be impeached unless people get out and vote in 2018.

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #178 on: January 11, 2017, 12:39:53 PM »
When this turns out to be a completely faked document with no actual intel from a former British intelligence agent, are these news organizations going to apologize for spread false news?

Did Trump ever apologize for all of the times he said "Some people are saying..." and then repeated some horrible horrible lie?  This has been his MO all year, to use vague internet rumors to smear his opponents.  I think it's only fair to play on his level.

Except that Wikileaks themselves have repeatedly denied that they received the DNC or Podesta leaks from Russian anything, Sol.  Who do you believe, Sol?

Have you even been reading the news?  I believe the 16 US intelligence agencies who have already identified the go-between that Russia used to leak information to Wikileaks.  Russia uncovered the information and then passed it on.  Wikileaks didn't (at the time) know for sure that the information came from Russia, because they themselves didn't get it from the Kremlin.  But it's disingenuous to say that the use of an intermediary absolves Russia of responsibility for the leak, isn't it?

Well the word "unverified" would imply not being verified and/or authentic. Not to mention it points our glaring errors. So how exactly can you spread "fake news" when you admit it's unverifiable and full of errors? Seems to me they understand it could be bogus and acknowledge as such.

This isn't fake news.  Fake news is a story that is based on something that didn't happen.  This is a story about an actual intelligence report, of questionable credibility.  It's still a real document.  It really exists, and is really under investigation, and has really been presented to Congress and to the Presidents, was really concealed during the election while other information of questionable credibility was really released, and that's what the story is about.  Heck, the (not fake) story even discusses the possibility that the intelligence report could be fake, in part or in whole. 

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

Absolutely I agree Sol. I think folks are going to start labeling everything as fake news now even if it boils down to them just simply not agreeing with it.

I find it particularly galling that the man who rode to power on birther conspiracies is now complaining about unsubstantiated attacks on him.  Birther conspiracies.  I...just can't believe that people actually voted for the birther-in-chief. 

His voting base has an authoritarian fetish.  It's more important to be strong and dominant, even if obviously lying.  In fact, lying and getting away with brazen lies only cements his dominance.  We can't  rely on his base coming to their senses.  They won't-this is a feature and not a bug for them.


Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2783
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #179 on: January 11, 2017, 12:54:17 PM »
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #180 on: January 11, 2017, 02:02:56 PM »
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.

If it were true it probably wouldn't be the most depraved thing he has done. Personally someone having a predilection to get pissed on doesn't bother me, though it would be funny to see a leader get embarrassed in front of the sexually repressed christian right.

At this point, if the Russians had a video of such an act would it really even be blackmail material? People who don't like Trump couldn't think any less of him and people who love him think he walks on water. Watching him get pissed on by a hooker surely wouldn't change anything at this point. Donald Trump being a pervert just isn't news.

You would pretty much have to have a video of him fucking a 12 year old girl or killing someone to hurt him at this point.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #181 on: January 11, 2017, 02:03:29 PM »

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it.  This is getting really interesting now.  Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?

EDIT: Just found out that even the NYT has thrown Buzzfeed and CNN under the bus for publishing this dossier without any kind of support.  That's so much like the pot calling the kettle black, that I don't even have a better metaphor.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 02:29:02 PM by Quidnon? »
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #182 on: January 11, 2017, 02:08:20 PM »

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it.  This is getting really interesting now.  Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?

4chan, jumping in and trying to take credit? Wow, I'm shocked -- shocked!

It's possible, I suppose.

Then again, the BBC is saying there's a second source that backs the veracity of the existence of the compromising dossier on Trump.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/672669/bbc-claims-second-source-backs-trump-dossier


Generally speaking, I try not to use cheap, tasteless jokes to mock political figures, because I think doing so is lazy and takes the place of legitimate critique.
This policy is REALLY, REALLY hard to adhere to right now.

"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2783
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #183 on: January 11, 2017, 02:13:31 PM »
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.

If it were true it probably wouldn't be the most depraved thing he has done. Personally someone having a predilection to get pissed on doesn't bother me, though it would be funny to see a leader get embarrassed in front of the sexually repressed christian right.

At this point, if the Russians had a video of such an act would it really even be blackmail material? People who don't like Trump couldn't think any less of him and people who love him think he walks on water. Watching him get pissed on by a hooker surely wouldn't change anything at this point. Donald Trump being a pervert just isn't news.

You would pretty much have to have a video of him fucking a 12 year old girl or killing someone to hurt him at this point.

Honestly, that's one of my gut reactions to the whole email hacking thing.  What did they/could they uncover from Trump that's more offensive than what we already know?  Probably not much.  He used a racial slur?  Have the country is already convinced he's David Duke.  He is sexist towards women?  Uh, more than the "grab them by the..." thing?  He's got shady business deals?  I wouldn't even read that news story, I already just assume it.  I mean, basically he's like the opposite of Hillary, his public image is so incredibly unfiltered he's about immune to blackmail and tarnish.  Versus Hillary, who went through so much effort to put on a polished front that any chink it in appears scandalous. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4217
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #184 on: January 11, 2017, 03:26:13 PM »
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.

If it were true it probably wouldn't be the most depraved thing he has done. Personally someone having a predilection to get pissed on doesn't bother me, though it would be funny to see a leader get embarrassed in front of the sexually repressed christian right.

At this point, if the Russians had a video of such an act would it really even be blackmail material? People who don't like Trump couldn't think any less of him and people who love him think he walks on water. Watching him get pissed on by a hooker surely wouldn't change anything at this point. Donald Trump being a pervert just isn't news.

You would pretty much have to have a video of him fucking a 12 year old girl or killing someone to hurt him at this point.
Given the accusation of his raping a 13 year old girl and his support for a proven pedophile, that would honestly not surprise me.  I honestly want to know what it would take for the GOP to impeach him, and I don't think there is anything.  The only blackmail I think that would work on Trump is proof that he is not rich.  He has put so much effort into that lie, it does not matter that many people would not care, he'd care.

jrhampt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 973
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #185 on: January 11, 2017, 03:28:50 PM »

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it.  This is getting really interesting now.  Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?

4chan, jumping in and trying to take credit? Wow, I'm shocked -- shocked!

It's possible, I suppose.

Then again, the BBC is saying there's a second source that backs the veracity of the existence of the compromising dossier on Trump.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/672669/bbc-claims-second-source-backs-trump-dossier


Generally speaking, I try not to use cheap, tasteless jokes to mock political figures, because I think doing so is lazy and takes the place of legitimate critique.
This policy is REALLY, REALLY hard to adhere to right now.

I, for one, am perfectly happy to rechristen the birther in chief as the peeOTUS. 

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #186 on: January 11, 2017, 04:07:30 PM »
I don't know if anyone can be considered qualified to run a superpower if they don't know what it feels like to be pissed on by a Russian hooker.

If it were true it probably wouldn't be the most depraved thing he has done. Personally someone having a predilection to get pissed on doesn't bother me, though it would be funny to see a leader get embarrassed in front of the sexually repressed christian right.

At this point, if the Russians had a video of such an act would it really even be blackmail material? People who don't like Trump couldn't think any less of him and people who love him think he walks on water. Watching him get pissed on by a hooker surely wouldn't change anything at this point. Donald Trump being a pervert just isn't news.

You would pretty much have to have a video of him fucking a 12 year old girl or killing someone to hurt him at this point.
Given the accusation of his raping a 13 year old girl and his support for a proven pedophile, that would honestly not surprise me. I honestly want to know what it would take for the GOP to impeach him, and I don't think there is anything.  The only blackmail I think that would work on Trump is proof that he is not rich.  He has put so much effort into that lie, it does not matter that many people would not care, he'd care.

They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #187 on: January 11, 2017, 05:14:54 PM »
Generally to get impeached you would have to do something illegal while in office and get caught. There would probably be reviews and investigation before impeachment.

On top of that for an impeachment to result in a removal from office is apparently unprecedented. Nixon resigned.

Embarrassing material probably isn't nearly enough. I doubt an old sex scandal with whores in a foreign country would be enough to get him to resign and I don't believe what has been talked about is a crime. It seems like it would be a first to see someone so high level to be forced into resignation over character defamation of this sort. It certainly seems like there has been plenty of low level politicians that have disappeared from public life over entanglements with paid sex. Most I believe did this stuff with public funding and while holding office.

What would be a crime is if he capitulated to demands by a foreign nation to avoid black mail. Seems like it would be pretty hard to prove though.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #188 on: January 11, 2017, 05:17:06 PM »
On the plus side I hope people hold this asshole(Trump) under a microscope for his full tenure.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #189 on: January 11, 2017, 07:17:52 PM »

Embarrassing material probably isn't nearly enough. I doubt an old sex scandal with whores in a foreign country would be enough to get him to resign and I don't believe what has been talked about is a crime.

Well, hiring hookers actually is a crime inside most of the US, but I honestly don't think that Trump would be impeached for a fetish even if he did it in the oval office, on top of the Resolute desk, on national television during a live episode of The Apprentice: Presidential Aid Edition.

That said, this is still fake news, and getting faker by the minute...

Quote
The salacious innuendoes in the periodic reports about Trump’s personal life dominated social media headlines. The mention of Webzilla and Gubarev was among the more specific allegations: that XBT and affiliates “had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct ‘altering operations’ against the Democratic Party leadership.”

Gubarev said he operated 75,000 servers across the globe and got real-time information if there had been hacking or illicit activity tied to his businesses. There is no evidence of that, he said, adding that no one has contacted him.

“I have a physical office in Dallas. Nobody contacted me,” said Gubarev, adding that 40 percent of his business is handled over the servers it runs in Dallas and the United States accounts for about 27 percent of his global business.[/quote

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article125910774.html
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

minimalistgamer

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
  • Location: United States of America
  • Gamer and minimalist.
    • Minimalist Gamer
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #190 on: January 11, 2017, 09:17:56 PM »
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.

To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.

I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.

The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.

I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.
I paid off my mortgage! You can read the details here -
https://minimalistgamer.blogspot.com/2017/01/paid-off-our-mortgage.html

Feel free to ask any questions.

oldtoyota

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2947
  • FIRE 2019
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #191 on: January 11, 2017, 10:15:12 PM »
Why is this suddenly back in the news?  We already knew that Trump campaign stuff was having regular conversations with Russian intelligence.  We knew that back in May of 2016.  Remember Paul Manafort?

That's not the kind of relationship that the Buzzfeed article alleges, Sol.  Yes, we know that Trump has ties with Russian billionaires, and that he adores Putin.  But this article publishes a "dossier" supposedly compiled by a retired British spy on rather deep political ties, Watergate style, including claiming that Trump has some bizarre sexual preferences that Russia supposedly indulges him with.  If it were at all verifiable, some of these things would have prevented me from voting at all, but they aren't verifiable, and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this even though they admit that they can't support it.

The same orgs giving Buzzfeed heat had no problem posting unverified info about HRC. Funny how they clutch their pearls now...


minimalistgamer

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
  • Location: United States of America
  • Gamer and minimalist.
    • Minimalist Gamer
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #192 on: January 11, 2017, 10:40:31 PM »
Why is this suddenly back in the news?  We already knew that Trump campaign stuff was having regular conversations with Russian intelligence.  We knew that back in May of 2016.  Remember Paul Manafort?

That's not the kind of relationship that the Buzzfeed article alleges, Sol.  Yes, we know that Trump has ties with Russian billionaires, and that he adores Putin.  But this article publishes a "dossier" supposedly compiled by a retired British spy on rather deep political ties, Watergate style, including claiming that Trump has some bizarre sexual preferences that Russia supposedly indulges him with.  If it were at all verifiable, some of these things would have prevented me from voting at all, but they aren't verifiable, and Buzzfeed has already taken some heat about publishing this even though they admit that they can't support it.

The same orgs giving Buzzfeed heat had no problem posting unverified info about HRC. Funny how they clutch their pearls now...

Yep. Its call hypocrisy and both sides are extremely guilty of this. There are no saints. This is why loyalty to a party or a candidate is pointless.
I paid off my mortgage! You can read the details here -
https://minimalistgamer.blogspot.com/2017/01/paid-off-our-mortgage.html

Feel free to ask any questions.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1162
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #193 on: January 11, 2017, 10:54:44 PM »
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.

To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.

I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.

The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.

I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.

I mean I sort of agree with you (though would quibble with much of this post), but if you really think CNN is equivalent to Breitbart, you have been gaslighted, friend. At least go with something like Daily Kos, or even Huffington Post if you want to point out examples of extreme liberal bias.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

minimalistgamer

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
  • Location: United States of America
  • Gamer and minimalist.
    • Minimalist Gamer
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #195 on: January 12, 2017, 05:22:12 AM »
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.

To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.

I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.

The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.

I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.

I mean I sort of agree with you (though would quibble with much of this post), but if you really think CNN is equivalent to Breitbart, you have been gaslighted, friend. At least go with something like Daily Kos, or even Huffington Post if you want to point out examples of extreme liberal bias.

CNN and MSNBC were terrible leading up to the election. Do you remember Van Jones saying this election result was a whitelash? To me that is an incredibly racist thing to say. Keep in mind, a lot of people that voted Democrat in previous elections, voted Republican this time around. Feel free to disagree with me about how good or bad CNN  is. Bottomline is, I lost respect for it. Just like I lost respect for Fox during the Bush era.

And who could forget the smug Rachel Maddow...my god she is the definition of partisan reporting. How they think they are different or better than Fox, I do not know.
I paid off my mortgage! You can read the details here -
https://minimalistgamer.blogspot.com/2017/01/paid-off-our-mortgage.html

Feel free to ask any questions.

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 837
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #196 on: January 12, 2017, 05:50:24 AM »
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.

To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.

I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.

The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.

I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.

I mean I sort of agree with you (though would quibble with much of this post), but if you really think CNN is equivalent to Breitbart, you have been gaslighted, friend. At least go with something like Daily Kos, or even Huffington Post if you want to point out examples of extreme liberal bias.

CNN and MSNBC were terrible leading up to the election. Do you remember Van Jones saying this election result was a whitelash? To me that is an incredibly racist thing to say. Keep in mind, a lot of people that voted Democrat in previous elections, voted Republican this time around. Feel free to disagree with me about how good or bad CNN  is. Bottomline is, I lost respect for it. Just like I lost respect for Fox during the Bush era.

And who could forget the smug Rachel Maddow...my god she is the definition of partisan reporting. How they think they are different or better than Fox, I do not know.

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment on Jones. Heck he has publicly chided liberal elitist and says both parties have major faults. And he has a bit of a history of saying things "off the cuff." So I have no argument there. But someone voicing an opinion about an election result isn't fake news.  Bretibart publishes actual fake news stories. Like a story a few days ago claiming President Obama awarded himself the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service. Umm no the DOD nominated him and the SecDef approved it. Heck Snopes has a page dedicated to dispelling Breitbart's stories. Sometimes they do get parts of them correct.

To CNN's credit they refused to publish the "Pissgate" story because it could not be verified.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 05:53:45 AM by BeginnerStache »

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 837
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #197 on: January 12, 2017, 06:00:33 AM »

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it.  This is getting really interesting now.  Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?

EDIT: Just found out that even the NYT has thrown Buzzfeed and CNN under the bus for publishing this dossier without any kind of support.  That's so much like the pot calling the kettle black, that I don't even have a better metaphor.

This seems interesting. You're attempting to scold someone for allegedly believing "fake news" while using a source with zero credibility who's attempting to convince you they created the story and fed it to some guy named Rick Wilson which was easily disprovable. So you're in essence using actual fake news to try and discredit unverifiable fake news. That's an odd twist, to put I mildly.

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Location: Avalon
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #198 on: January 12, 2017, 06:48:49 AM »

See the difference?  A fake news story would report on events that didn't happen.  This is a story about things that did happen, and are happening, to try to figure out if some other things really happened or not.

It came out today that members of 4chan are claiming that they made up the stories included in the dossier, and they are bragging now that the media fell for it.  This is getting really interesting now.  Are you sticking with your claim that this wasn't fake news, Sol?

EDIT: Just found out that even the NYT has thrown Buzzfeed and CNN under the bus for publishing this dossier without any kind of support.  That's so much like the pot calling the kettle black, that I don't even have a better metaphor.

This seems interesting. You're attempting to scold someone for allegedly believing "fake news" while using a source with zero credibility who's attempting to convince you they created the story and fed it to some guy named Rick Wilson which was easily disprovable. So you're in essence using actual fake news to try and discredit unverifiable fake news. That's an odd twist, to put I mildly.
The BBC are reporting that the author of the dossier is a respected former MI6 man, named as Christopher Steele, who had postings in Moscow and has sources in the FSB.  He is now a director of Orbis Business Intelligence - https://orbisbi.com/
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
Re: United States of Russia?
« Reply #199 on: January 12, 2017, 07:29:23 AM »
They would never do it unless the public opinion tide turned so decisively that they realized it was in their best political interests. They would never move to impeach him for actual ethical or criminal reasons. Unfortunately, Trump's supporters are so brainwashed by Breitbart and fake news that they would take even the most decisive proof of criminal activity on Trump's part as just "liberal bias."  A high-quality video of him raping a twelve year-old girl while she screamed her heart out would not convince them.

To someone who came into this political mess from the outside, I always find it amusing when someone genuinely believes the other side is brainwashed for not believing in the things they believe in, or outraged at the things they are outraged at.

I mean replace Trump with Hilary, and Breibart with CNN, and you just described the other side.

The republican party does not care about the country, but only their political interests. Absolutely right. I will not disagree here. But the democrats have plenty of skeletons in their closet, everyone knows this, yet, somehow the liberals/democrats always seem to believe they have the intellectual and moral high ground.

I don't understand this at all. Especially because the same people that criticize the GOP as religious right, support muslim immigration. The same people that are against profiling and stereotyping dismiss Southerners as a bunch of racist hicks.

Huh. That's funny. Someone must have deleted the part of my post where I said that.

/sarcasm

You do know that Trump supporters disproportionately consumed "news" that is actually fake, don't you? As in written with the knowledge that it is not true? And that leading up to the election, the consumption of such news rose significantly?

"Biased" news sources are one thing. Literal lies published with full knowledge that they are not true is quite another. And Trump himself knows how powerful and important inventing news out of whole cloth is to controlling the opinion of his supporters. We know this because he has chosen Steve Bannon, former head of Breitbart (one of the original purveyors of modern fake news) as his chief strategist.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 07:46:32 AM by Kris »
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap