Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart
Benjammin wrote:If the DNC had played fair Bernie would have had an excellent shot at the nomination, would have beaten Trump and we wouldn't be in this mess. I disagree with a lot of what Bernie believes but at least he's an honorable person.
Sent from my XT1650 using RealGM mobile app
AFM wrote:AFM wrote:Haha.
Trump is live now, gentlemen.
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/vb.153080620724/10158452429155725/?type=3&theater
Trump on the rumors: "I'm very much a germaphobe, believe it or not."
pineappleheadindc wrote:AFM wrote:AFM wrote:Haha.
Trump is live now, gentlemen.
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/vb.153080620724/10158452429155725/?type=3&theater
Trump on the rumors: "I'm very much a germaphobe, believe it or not."
Is this a real quote?
If it is, it's GOLD.
montestewart wrote:dck and I both have gone to such lengths to illustrate scenarios in which it could make sense. Reasonable responses to our patient formulations might included, "it's pretty far fetched" or "perhaps, but this scenario makes far more sense to me," or "I prefer Roger Moore to Sean Connery."
Movies are not the evidence, they merely routinely illustrate real life, so saying, "This isn't the movies" doesn't negate anything. (Is the Zapruder film actually evidence that JFK is still alive?) It is so believable as a recurring element in movies exactly because it has been employed in real life. Your response that it would be against Russia interest, as if no blackmailer has ever threatened to expose information that might be against their own interests, is an unsupportable, unsustainable, nonrenewable position.
The mere act of blackmail is against the blackmailer's interests, if the blackmailer is caught. Are you saying there's no such thing as blackmail? Of course, not, therefore, blackmailers will risk acting against their own interests. Successful blackmailing routinely involves some level of bluffing. You think Putin's incapable of bluffing? You think he's worried about angering the U.S.? You think Russia has a long history of not invading other countries exactly because they're afraid of angering the U.S.?
Somewhere in an underground vault in Russia, there could be a ziplock baggy with yellow sheets and "козырь" on the fresh until label. Admit it!
tontoz wrote:gtn130, do you think the DNC emails that Wikileaks published were fake? What does the "intelligence community" have to say about the validity of the emails?
The timing of the release was obviously motivated by partisan bias, just like the "intelligence community" going public with the Russia allegations. I certainly don't remember claiming Wiki was non-partisan. But all they did was publish them. There is no evidence I have seen that they edited them at all.
AFM wrote:Damn, Trump refused to take a question from a CNN reporter saying "not you, you're fake news"--room broke out in applause
gtn130 wrote:AFM wrote:Damn, Trump refused to take a question from a CNN reporter saying "not you, you're fake news"--room broke out in applause
If you cover Trump unfavorably, you're blacklisted. Great stuff. Freedom! Democracy!
gtn130 wrote:tontoz wrote:gtn130, do you think the DNC emails that Wikileaks published were fake? What does the "intelligence community" have to say about the validity of the emails?
The timing of the release was obviously motivated by partisan bias, just like the "intelligence community" going public with the Russia allegations. I certainly don't remember claiming Wiki was non-partisan. But all they did was publish them. There is no evidence I have seen that they edited them at all.
No, I assume they're real, and I alluded to them when I said "wild distortions of the facts." Leaking unverified stolen emails and then sensationalizing them for political gain while also spreading fake, made-up news stories is not remotely ethical or credible journalism.
I understand taking issue with Buzzfeed publishing that intel report, but you cannot possibly accept what Wikileaks does at the same time. Sorry.
And, you said that you don't think Wikileaks is pandering to Russia, and 50% of my post was about how they are. I guess we're in agreement on that now?
tontoz wrote:But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected President is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth – despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie – is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality
exactly
AFM wrote:gtn130 wrote:AFM wrote:Damn, Trump refused to take a question from a CNN reporter saying "not you, you're fake news"--room broke out in applause
If you cover Trump unfavorably, you're blacklisted. Great stuff. Freedom! Democracy!
"Unfavorably"?
--Spread rumors that he's a manchurian candidate blackmailed and groomed for 5 years by Russia, because they have video of him and Russian hookers peeing on Obama's hotel bed.
--Cover "unfavorably"
Please pick one.
closg00 wrote:tontoz wrote:But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected President is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth – despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie – is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality
exactly
I had to chuckle at this, conservative "news" outlets bread and butter is evidence-free assertions.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app
tontoz wrote:gtn130 wrote:tontoz wrote:gtn130, do you think the DNC emails that Wikileaks published were fake? What does the "intelligence community" have to say about the validity of the emails?
The timing of the release was obviously motivated by partisan bias, just like the "intelligence community" going public with the Russia allegations. I certainly don't remember claiming Wiki was non-partisan. But all they did was publish them. There is no evidence I have seen that they edited them at all.
No, I assume they're real, and I alluded to them when I said "wild distortions of the facts." Leaking unverified stolen emails and then sensationalizing them for political gain while also spreading fake, made-up news stories is not remotely ethical or credible journalism.
I understand taking issue with Buzzfeed publishing that intel report, but you cannot possibly accept what Wikileaks does at the same time. Sorry.
And, you said that you don't think Wikileaks is pandering to Russia, and 50% of my post was about how they are. I guess we're in agreement on that now?
I admit I was not aware of Russia defending him. I also don't do Twitter. I can't even open twitter at work.
But at the same time I haven't see any evidence that the emails have come from Russia. All I have seen is a lot of partisan propaganda which was clearly meant to prevent Trump from being elected and is now trying to delegitimize his Presidency. The idea that this important evidence is somehow "classified" is comical.
tontoz wrote:closg00 wrote:tontoz wrote:
exactly
I had to chuckle at this, conservative "news" outlets bread and butter is evidence-free assertions.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app
So it is OK when the left does it, but not OK when the right does it?
Many of these same right wing news outlets also tried their best to undermine Trump.
gtn130 wrote:[Trump himself has acknowledged Russia was behind it. There is ample evidence - as received by cyber security experts - that whoever executed the hack has an extensive history of working in conjunction with Russian interests.