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

[Pickman's model]

Why? If you tell me the dog ate your homework and I prove that you never had a dog how should I treat your refined claim that the chicken ate your homework?

right. so now you're calling me a liar

is there any genuine reason why you can't see in a few words why you feel that the article to which i linked was garbage?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Trump was in London in the midst of Margaret Thatcher’s big bang, red braces and loadsamoney mania years, yet his judgment on Britain was this: “Your country’s distaste for success is a national disease.” Bear that in mind as our government begs for a post-Brexit trade deal, with a Theresa May date not in Trump’s diary. What kind of trade deal does Liam Fox imagine he will broker with this man whose contempt for Britain, even back in its most Trumpish era, was so withering? Just as Trump’s view on Iran is unchanged, I doubt he has formed any new views about Britain.

Trump revealed his presidential dream to me in 1988. Now the nightmare begins | Polly Toynbee

 

[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'.

Where is there any evidence that the people reporting the existence of the Trump dossier 'just got someone to make it'. If you can't or won't tell the difference between a journalist making something up (paradoxically genuinely fake news) and a journalist reporting something which may or may not be true (and pointing out as some did that it hasn't been/can't be verified), then you are the one who is 'copping out'; that is you are copping out on employing your critical faculties by dismissing all of something you choose to call 'main steam media' as 'fake news'. That's the truth...but you can't handle the truth.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. apologies for the clunky film reference...it's Friday afternoon and I'm bored.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Donald Trump inauguration ball books Bruce Springsteen cover band

Donald Trump Inauguration Ball Books A Bruce Springsteen Cover Band

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Finally, fifth, it is important to emphasize that this is not a case of the intelligence community leaking sensitive information about an investigative subject out of revenge or any other improper motive. This type of information, referencing sensitive sources and methods and the identities of U.S. persons, is typically treated by the intelligence community with the utmost care. And this material, in fact, does not come from the intelligence community; it comes, rather, from private intelligence documents put together by a company. It is actually not even classified.

All of which is to say to everyone: slow down, and take a deep breath. We shouldn’t assume either that this is simply a “fake news” episode directed at discrediting Trump or that the dam has now broken and the truth is coming out at last. We don’t know what the reality is here, and the better part of valor is not to get ahead ahead of the facts—a matter on which, incidentally, the press deserves a lot of credit.

About that Explosive Trump Story: Take a Deep Breath

 

[Pickman's model]

Why? If you tell me the dog ate your homework and I prove that you never had a dog how should I treat your refined claim that the chicken ate your homework?

fuck your dogs and chickens. what prompted you to say that the article to which i linked was garbage - what specific things in the article do you regard as untrue or as unfounded conclusions?

 

[squirrelp]

Where is there any evidence that the people reporting the existence of the Trump dossier 'just got someone to make it'. If you can't or won't tell the difference between a journalist making something up (paradoxically genuinely fake news) and a journalist reporting something which may or may not be true (and pointing out as some did that it hasn't been/can't be verified), then you are the one who is 'copping out'; that is you are copping out on employing your critical faculties by dismissing all of something you choose to call 'main steam media' as 'fake news'. That's the truth...but you can't handle the truth.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. apologies for the clunky film reference...it's Friday afternoon and I'm bored.

It doesn't matter whether the people who make up the fake news, and the ones that uncritically repeat it, are the same: I was giving you a hypothetical example to illustrate the point.

I note your call for 'evidence' is with unintended irony.

 

[butchersapron]

It doesn't matter whether the people who make up the fake news, and the ones that uncritically repeat it, are the same: I was giving you a hypothetical example to illustrate the point.

You have missed Louis' point about reporting at least twice now. He's explained it twice now. I've applied the lesson to your own posts twice. You seem to want to basically gut reporting without understanding what reporting is or the varieties of it.

 

[squirrelp]

fuck your dogs and chickens. what prompted you to say that the article to which i linked was garbage - what specific things in the article do you regard as untrue or as unfounded conclusions?

I think I made it quite clear, the implication that there is any truth at all to the Michael Cohen story in the memo being reported. I don't believe there was a muddle over it being the wrong Michael Cohen, I think the original story is simply a pack of fibs

 

[Pickman's model]

I think I made it quite clear, the implication that there is any truth at all to the Michael Cohen story in the memo being reported.

what the fuck does this mean?

I don't believe there was a muddle over it being the wrong Michael Cohen, I think the original story is simply a pack of fibs

 

[squirrelp]

You seem to want to basically gut reporting without understanding what reporting is or the varieties of it.

There's mainstream media and then there is actual journalism.

 

[butchersapron]

There's mainstream media and then there is actual journalism.

This is not a serious reply to either Louis' posts or mine.

edit: it's quite a dangerous non-serious reply too.

 

[not-bono-ever]

.

 

[squirrelp]

This is not a serious reply to either Louis's posts or mine.

Whether you consider it so or not no matter. I am giving LMN some effort, I have long passed the point of caring to correct the opinions of his current cheerleader

 

[butchersapron]

Whether you consider it so or not no matter. I am giving LMN some effort, I have long passed the point of caring to correct the opinions of his current cheerleader

You have argued that reporting on something - rather than on something as being true - constitutes 'fake news'. This basically kills pretty much all reporting. You have no idea of what reporting is. It also makes your posts on this 'fake news'.

Which was it, MSM or actual journalism that led you to conclude the paris attacks were a false flag? In that, maybe there is some answers.

 

[Pickman's model]

Whether you consider it so or not no matter. I am giving LMN some effort, I have long passed the point of caring to correct the opinions of his current cheerleader

and how abouts correcting your own opinions, or at the very least making them comprehensible?

 

[gosub]

There's mainstream media and then there is actual journalism.

'Bernstein—who was part of the CNN team responsible for breaking news about the Trump dossier.'
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/ber...ne-of-the-great-anonymous-sources-of-our-era/

 

[J Ed]

Has anyone attempt to answer the question of why, if the document was taken seriously enough by the CIA to brief both Obama and Trump, did they wait 3+ months to do so?

 

[squirrelp]

I'm really getting tired of this fixation on the story at the expense of the truth. A lie repeated uncritically is a lie.

 

[J Ed]

Deep state moves against Trump continue here

AP Source: Trump aide in frequent contact with Russia envoy

WASHINGTON (AP) — A senior U.S. official says the Obama administration is aware of frequent contacts between President-elect Donald Trump's top national security adviser and Russia's ambassador to the United States.

The official says the contacts happened on the day President Barack Obama expelled dozens of Russian officials from the U.S. and imposed sanctions as punishment for election-related hacking. The official says the administration is also aware of contacts between Trump adviser Michael Flynn and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at other times as well.

The day after Obama announced sanctions, Russian President Vladimir Putin said he would not retaliate. Trump praised him for his restraint.

Flynn's conversations were first reported by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. The official was not authorized to confirm the contacts publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Can't wait till the system of mass surveillance which allows the Obama administration to find this stuff out is in the hands of Trump. Not that we need many more precedents of how the surveillance state can be used against opposition politicians but we can add one to the list here.

 

[gosub]

Has anyone attempt to answer the question of why, if the document was taken seriously enough by the CIA to brief both Obama and Trump, then why did they wait 3+ months to do so?

because they knew it had ended doing the rounds at various media outlets and it would have be remiss not to have mentioned it

 

[maomao]

Jesus this is worse than when CRI and CIA Tom were swamping the thread with shit.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm really getting tired of this fixation on the story at the expense of the truth. A lie repeated uncritically is a lie.

You've done this by shouting fake news fake news. Even your posting then is fake news by your own logic.

And please, as if you have a single finger on the truth beyond the story. As if anyone posting here does. All you have is 'fake news'.

 

[J Ed]

because they knew it had ended doing the rounds at various media outlets and it would have be remiss not to have mentioned it

It was doing the rounds at various media outlets, ones more serious than Buzzfeed like the NYT, months ago. Why not brief then?

 

[butchersapron]

It was doing the rounds at various media outlets, ones more serious than Buzzfeed like the NYT, months ago. Why not brief then?

What does brief mean here though - mention? What else is briefed/mentioned? A chronology isn't going to provide the key here.

 

[gosub]

I'm really getting tired of this fixation on the story at the expense of the truth. A lie repeated uncritically is a lie.

Absolutely : When Trump tried to paint the likes of Carl Bernstein as 'fake news' he set himself for a kicking, followed by another kicking followed by another kicking. It was the journalistic equivalent of drawing cartoons of Allah.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

'Bernstein—who was part of the CNN team responsible for breaking news about the Trump dossier.'
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/ber...ne-of-the-great-anonymous-sources-of-our-era/

Bernstein: “The chief officials of the United States intelligence community believed they had something urgent enough to bring to the attention of the president and the president-elect of the United States. That is a story.”

It was doing the rounds at various media outlets, ones more serious than Buzzfeed like the NYT, months ago. Why not brief then?

Who pays the piper?

 

[butchersapron]

Must say...pipe...line

 

[Wilf]

I'm really getting tired of this fixation on the story at the expense of the truth. A lie repeated uncritically is a lie.

Have you any evidence that the story is untrue? And I can ask that question without myself knowing or believing that it is necessarily true.

 

[gosub]

Bernstein: “The chief officials of the United States intelligence community believed they had something urgent enough to bring to the attention of the president and the president-elect of the United States. That is a story.”

Which is what CNN ran with.
Mr Trump found it unacceptable.