Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[Yuwipi Woman]

Man sure seems to have a lot of glass tables in his living room.

Urg. Is it possible to be more tasteless? Looks like Louis XIV's brothel.

 

[teqniq]

Urg. Is it possible to be more tasteless? Looks like Louis XIV's brothel.

Having absolutely no taste seems to be a malaise of some of the disgustingly rich.

 

[Pickman's model]

Urg. Is it possible to be more tasteless? Looks like Louis XIV's brothel.

louis xiv's brothel more tasteful

 

[Pickman's model]

Having absolutely no taste seems to be a malaise of some of the disgustingly rich.

take a stroll down e.g. the bishop's avenue and you will see that there is no truth in the supposition that wealth buys you taste.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Perhaps your question was. But your first statment was not a question at all.

It was meant to be undermining. Now you know that doesn't work.

No, statement of fact to set the scene. if you don the cloak of victim of course, you will see it as a slight. I cannot help you on that. You could to work at actually adding something and you will get more out of the thread.

of course you will respond to this with some backhand comment about bullying or whatevs, so I will now give you the space to do that ...

 

[Pickman's model]

No, statement of fact to set the scene. if you don the cloak of victim of course, you will see it as a slight. I cannot help you on that. You could to work at actually adding something and you will get more out of the thread.

of course you will respond to this with some backhand comment about bullying or whatevs, so I will now give you the space to do that ...

he'll probably call you louise or agatha now. (((not-bono-ever)))

 

[mikey mikey]

No, statement of fact to set the scene.

As I said, I was kindly given five likes from posters that valued my contributions. Therefore what you describe as "fact" is merely your opinion and one that several other members do not share. Nobody is forcing you to read my posts. Now, if you have quite finished being passive aggressive, we can metaphorically go our seperate ways.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Anyway, back on track....

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Yes why need journalism involve getting to the truth of the matter?

I would note that the defence of ignorance generally doesn't work for those prosecuted for fencing stolen goods. But with the mainstream media 'fell of the back of a lorry' seems to do just fine especially when it comes to parroting government propaganda.

'fake news' I think works just fine actually

With regards to 'fake news', the 'truth of the matter' is that the report was produced and distributed; i.e. it really exists and has been read. That is what was reported. It was not claimed that the report was true; so your stolen goods analogy is well wide of the mark.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

take a stroll down e.g. the bishop's avenue and you will see that there is no truth in the supposition that wealth buys you taste.

I've done better with curb shopped furniture and a can of paint.

 

[flypanam]

It's been a while since I watched 'All the President's Men', but my recollection was that the CIA/FBI were part of the story when it first broke, rather than spinning it against Nixon. It may have ended in impeachment, but when it started Nixon was in a very different position to Trump.

There is a case that Trump is probably more akin to Carter than any president in of being hated by everyone and admired by no one.

 

[squirrelp]

With regards to 'fake news', the 'truth of the matter' is that the report was produced and distributed; i.e. it really exists and has been read. That is what was reported. It was not claimed that the report was true; so your stolen goods analogy is well wide of the mark.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

So in other words if you want to spread some rubbish, just get someone to make a report on it, and publish the 'report'. Sorry I call this a total cop-out.

This argument of "we're just relaying what we were told, and that's the news, whether it is true or not" is exactly what a senior BBC editor was saying after the Iraq WMD debacle. It's deserving of contempt. It means that you are a vehicle for propaganda.

What actually matters is the truth. I accept in most journalistic circles this is now something of an irrelevance as you so eloquently point out: that's why mainstream media is 'fake news'.

 

[Pickman's model]

So in other words if you want to spread some rubbish, just get someone to make a report on it, and publish the 'report'. Sorry I call this a total cop-out.

This argument of "we're just relaying what we were told, and that's the news, whether it is true or not" is exactly what a senior BBC editor was saying after the Iraq WMD debacle. It's deserving of contempt. It means that you are a vehicle for propaganda.

What actually matters is the truth. I understand in most journalistic circles this is now something of an irrelevance as you so eloquently point out: that's why mainstream media is 'fake news'.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

There is a case that Trump is probably more akin to Carter than any president in of being hated by everyone and admired by no one.

Carter was a better President that he's usually given credit for. He was ahead of his time in trying to make the transition away from fossil fuels. If we had followed the path he was laying out we'd be way ahead of the game on climate change than we are now.

 

[flypanam]

Carter was a better President that he's usually given credit for. He was ahead of his time in trying to make the transition away from fossil fuels. If we had followed the path he was laying out we'd be way ahead of the game on climate change than we are now.

Yeah but he also cast himself as the outsider who would take on entrenched interests, so he also deregulated banking and attacked welfare, ultimately making no one happy.

 

[maomao]

As I said, I was kindly given five likes from posters that valued my contributions. Therefore what you describe as "fact" is merely your opinion and one that several other members do not share. Nobody is forcing you to read my posts. Now, if you have quite finished being passive aggressive, we can metaphorically go our seperate ways.

I got four likes for telling you to fuck off.

 

[Wilf]

So in other words if you want to spread some rubbish, just get someone to make a report on it, and publish the 'report'. Sorry I call this a total cop-out.

This argument of "we're just relaying what we were told, and that's the news, whether it is true or not" is exactly what a senior BBC editor was saying after the Iraq WMD debacle. It's deserving of contempt. It means that you are a vehicle for propaganda.

What actually matters is the truth. I accept in most journalistic circles this is now something of an irrelevance as you so eloquently point out: that's why mainstream media is 'fake news'.

This is overstated. The report seems to have been something put together through run of the mill intelligence channels. And yes, it was commissioned by partisan republicans and then democrats. It's certainly unverified and the partisan commissioning may well mean that certain facts and relationships were interpreted to suit the commissioners. Yes and there are good reasons to question anything put together by the state and it's hinterland of security firms. But none of that adds up to it being 'fake', made up, nor is there specific evidence that the information is incorrect. It's simply unverified.

 

[andysays]

As I said, I was kindly given five likes from posters that valued my contributions. Therefore what you describe as "fact" is merely your opinion and one that several other members do not share. Nobody is forcing you to read my posts. Now, if you have quite finished being passive aggressive, we can metaphorically go our seperate ways.

How many PMs of support?

 

[squirrelp]

This is overstated. The report seems to have been something put together through run of the mill intelligence channels. And yes, it was commissioned by partisan republicans and then democrats. It's certainly unverified and the partisan commissioning may well mean that certain facts and relationships were interpreted to suit the commissioners. Yes and there are good reasons to question anything put together by the state and it's hinterland of security firms. But none of that adds up to it being 'fake', made up, nor is there specific evidence that the information is incorrect. It's simply unverified.

Right,

Well suppose I repost a facebook article from Southend News Network, believing it (erroneously) to be true. Does it cease to be 'fake news' because I have acted in good faith in repeating it?

No of course it doesn't.
And it is just the same with our media and government propaganda.

They make up bullshit and our media repeats it for them without concerning themselves over the truth of it.

 

[andysays]

I got four likes for telling you to fuck off.

If you can tell me the post number I'll go back and make it 5

(edited significantly since Pickman's model's "like")

 

[squirrelp]

From Craig Murray:

Michael Cohen has now stated he has never been to Prague in his life. If that is true the extremely weak credibility of the entire forgery collapses in total. What is more, contrary to the claims of the Guardian and Washington Post that the material is “unverifiable”, the veracity of it could be tested extremely easily by the most basic journalism, ie asking Mr Cohen who has produced his passport. The editors of the Washington Post and the Guardian are guilty of pushing as blazing front page news the most blatant forgery to serve their own political ends, without carrying out the absolutely basic journalistic checks which would easily prove the forgery. Those editors must resign.

The Steele Dossier or the Hitler Diaries Mark II - Craig Murray

 

[Pickman's model]

As I said, I was kindly given five likes from posters that valued my contributions.

you've had five.

right.

i've had rather more than that on this thread. which must make my opinions more valued than your witterings.

 

[Pickman's model]

If you can tell me the post number I'll go back and make it 5

(edited significantly since Pickman's model's "like")

here's the link, for other people who want to like maomao's post - Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Strikes me that a bonus for the deep state in this is the further deligitimisation of democratic institutions making the future technocracy more palatable.

Yeah that's the sort of interpretation I find myself wondering about too

 

[pesh]

As I said, I was kindly given five likes from posters that valued my contributions.

my Christmas tree got 10.

 

[Pickman's model]

This is overstated. The report seems to have been something put together through run of the mill intelligence channels. And yes, it was commissioned by partisan republicans and then democrats. It's certainly unverified and the partisan commissioning may well mean that certain facts and relationships were interpreted to suit the commissioners. Yes and there are good reasons to question anything put together by the state and it's hinterland of security firms. But none of that adds up to it being 'fake', made up, nor is there specific evidence that the information is incorrect. It's simply unverified.

anyway REPORT: Intelligence Community Believes It Was a Different Michael Cohen Who Visited Prague

 

[squirrelp]

anyway REPORT: Intelligence Community Believes It Was a Different Michael Cohen Who Visited Prague

Are you suggesting we believe this rubbish?

 

[Pickman's model]

Are you suggesting we believe this rubbish?

perhaps you could specify the points with which you disagree.

or perhaps not, i'm not really exercised whether *you* believe it or no.

 

[Wilf]

Right,

Well suppose I repost a facebook article from Southend News Network, believing it (erroneously) to be true. Does it cease to be 'fake news' because I have acted in good faith in repeating it?

No of course it doesn't.
And it is just the same with our media and government propaganda.

They make up bullshit and our media repeats it for them without concerning themselves over the truth of it.

I think it goes back to the original report:

Is there evidence that it was a hoax, made up, a complete invention? No, not that I'm aware of.

Are there grounds for thinking it was at least produced by usual channel, oxymoron alert, 'reputable spooks'? Cautiously, yes.

Does that make it 'true'? No, of course not - but neither is it evidence that it isn't.

 

[LDC]

That time I got drunk, embarrassed myself at the party, and then went home crying and wet the bed.

FAKE NEWS.

Can we stop it with this terrible and useless phrase now please? squirrelp you seem particularly obsessed with it.