Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I'm doubtful (they do have "unconfirmed" and "alleged" as every other word), but it's Trump, so I would honestly not be surprised if it is true.
And, all things considered, if it is true, Trump should just reveal it right now, as a show of respect for the American people, and to get rid of any sort of power Russia has. I'd rather our president be a laughing stock than controlled my Russia.
But, as I said, we have no actual evidence presented yet, so....
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Just Tony wrote: Was Trump's video filmed while he was in office? Like, LITERALLY in the oval office? THAT is why Clinton got pegged, not for every other incident before his career. While I will never sing Trump's accolades, I will point this little goal post moving out pretty quick. And I thought the main crux of the Clinton case was perjury, but I guess it would all depend on what your definition of the word "is" is...
Let's be honest here, Clinton was impeached for being a democrat at a time when the republican party wanted a media stunt to get attention. There's a reason the impeachment process was straight party-line votes where everyone knew the outcome from the beginning.
As for Trump, the same could happen to him. Having kinky sex isn't a crime, but if there's enough support for "get rid of Trump", whether as a media stunt or as a serious impeachment attempt, they'll figure out some crime that he's technically accused of. But the real reason, which everyone involved will understand, is that he committed the crime of being Trump and people don't want him to be president anymore. The problem with this, as satisfying as it would be to get rid of him, is that impeaching Trump just replaces him with Pence. Do we really want to trade an incompetent clown for someone who is competently horrible? IMO it would be much better to keep Trump in office but obstruct all the horrible things he attempts to do, and then vote him out in 2020.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
So, it seems that there's a bit of a kerfuffle about this whole Trump/Russia thing. True? False? One thing is sure, BuzzFeed has thrown away any remaining shred of legitimacy they might have had left after the election. Let the internet throw BuzzFeed in the same dark hole that Alec Jones lives in.
Left-leaning news outlet abandons all journalistic ethics in publishing explosive dossier
The online news site BuzzFeed on Tuesday published a letter containing salacious allegations — which even the left-leaning outlet acknowledged are unverified — against President-Elect Donald Trump.
The letter, purporting to come from a retired British intelligence agent, details Trump’s alleged relationship with Russia and contends that the Kremlin has been “cultivating, supporting and assisting” Trump for at least five years.
It alleges that Russians have been feeding Trump intelligence on his opponents, including Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, for years. It also details Trump’s alleged “personal obsessions and sexual perversion.”
BuzzFeed acknowledges that it has not verified the accusations and even notes that the document contains a number of basic factual errors. Yet it published the full document.
“Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government,” BuzzFeed wrote.
It is a shocking breakdown of journalistic ethics.
Even Mother Jones declined to publish the full details and dossier.
"Even Donald Trump deserves journalistic fairness," tweeted David Corn, Mother Jones' Washington Bureau chief.
David Corn wrote:3. I accurately characterized the memos-this is important stuff-but didn't publish details. Even Donald Trump deserves journalistic fairness
Ben Smith, BuzzFeed's editor-in-chief, defended the decision in a memo to staff.
"Our presumption is to be transparent in our journalism and to share what we have with our readers," he wrote in the email he subsequently shared on Twitter. "We have always erred on the side of publishing. In this case, the document was in wide circulation in the highest levels of American government and media."
Astonishingly, though, Smith cast doubt on whether the story his site published was true.
"As we noted in our story, there is a serious reason to doubt the allegations," he wrote. "We have been chasing specific claims in this document for weeks, and will continue to."
Smith drew sharp rebukes from other reporters.
"Not how journalism works: Here's a thing that might or might not be true, without supporting evidence; decide for yourself if it's legit," tweeted Brad Heath, an investigative reporter for USA Today.
Julia Ioffe, a journalist who left Politico after suggesting in a tweet that Trump might be having sex with his own daughter, tweeted Tuesday that she had been approached with the story that BuzzFeed ran with but declined to publish. "Because it was impossible to verify. (I tried.)"
Julia Ioffe wrote:Okay, fellow journalists, raise your hand if you too were approached with this story. (I was.)
New York Times reporter Adam Goldman heaped criticism on both BuzzFeed and CNN, which aired a version of the story Tuesday but did not publish all of the unverified details.
"Sequence of events: @CNN finds way to talk about report and @buzzfeed uses that as reason to publish. Media critics are gonna be busy," he tweeted.
Just Tony wrote: Was Trump's video filmed while he was in office? Like, LITERALLY in the oval office? THAT is why Clinton got pegged, not for every other incident before his career. While I will never sing Trump's accolades, I will point this little goal post moving out pretty quick. And I thought the main crux of the Clinton case was perjury, but I guess it would all depend on what your definition of the word "is" is...
Actually it started with a witchhunt over Whitewater, that turned up nothing and started to come under pressure to find something, anything, just to justify the political capital and millions of dollars sunk in to the thing. This is not all that different from the Benghazi nonsense eventually finding Clinton's emails as something to pretend was important. For a Democrat version the Valerie Plame affair eventually went after Scooter Libby's meaningless perjury, just to claim they achieved something.
As for this thing about Trump being blackmailed by Russia... well 2016 should have taught all of us that things that sound crazy might actually be true, but it also should have taught us that there's plenty of people out there happy to make up fake news for clicks. I'm adopting a wait and see stance.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I mean, it's buzzfeed. They are literally a click-bait site. I should point out that printing unverified stuff but saying it's unverified isn't a bad thing, as long as it is not displayed like the truth. No idea about this one though, as I haven't looked at buzzfeed's soght because feth buzzfeed.
Breotan wrote: So, it seems that there's a bit of a kerfuffle about this whole Trump/Russia thing. True? False? One thing is sure, BuzzFeed has thrown away any remaining shred of legitimacy they might have had left after the election. Let the internet throw BuzzFeed in the same dark hole that Alec Jones lives in.
Except unlike Alex Jones and his ilk, BuzzFeed News plainly states that what they have is unverified and full of errors. A no point did they ever present this as the truth, which even your linked article admits, but somehow that doesn't stop the outrage that a fething clickbait site would dare publish something potentially damning about Glorious Leader.
Also, the Editor-in-Chief of the website you linked is Laura Ingram, a Trump lackey that has had no problem using her position to fawn over Trump; I mean she's straight up said that she wants a part in his administration. So if you're going to bitch and complain about the "legitimacy" of a clickbait website, you should start by examining the journalistic integrity of your sources.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/11 06:52:05
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
sirlynchmob wrote: So apparently Trump has a sex tape that the Russians hold to ensure his good behavior towards them. Apparently trump likes the golden showers. So if Clinton is impeached because of his infidelity, than surely it should be the easiest thing ever to impeach trump and throw him out once the tape comes out right? my guess is we'll see the GOP accept, normalize and praise trump and sell out their own morals and convictions and pretend the tape doesn't exist even after everyone's seen it.
WASHINGTON — The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about Mr. Trump, two officials with knowledge of the briefing said.
The summary is based on memos generated by political operatives seeking to derail Mr. Trump’s candidacy. Details of the reports began circulating in the fall and were widely known among journalists and politicians in Washington.
The two-page summary, first reported by CNN, was presented as an appendix to the intelligence agencies’ report on Russian hacking efforts during the election, the officials said. The material was not corroborated, and The New York Times has not been able to confirm the claims. But intelligence agencies considered it so potentially explosive that they decided Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and congressional leaders needed to be told about it and informed that the agencies were actively investigating it.
Intelligence officials were concerned that the information would leak before they informed Mr. Trump of its existence, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the summary is classified and talking about it would be a felony.
On Tuesday night, Mr. Trump responded on Twitter: “FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!”
In an appearance recorded for NBC’s “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, Kellyanne Conway, said of the claims in the opposition research memos, “He has said he is not aware of that.”
Since the intelligence agencies’ report on Friday that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had ordered the hacking and leaks of Democratic emails in order to hurt Mrs. Clinton and help Mr. Trump, the president-elect and his aides have said that Democrats are trying to mar his election victory.
The decision of top intelligence officials to give the president, the president-elect and the so-called Gang of Eight — Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress and the intelligence committees — what they know to be unverified, defamatory material was extremely unusual.
The appendix summarized opposition research memos prepared mainly by a retired British intelligence operative for a Washington political and corporate research firm. The firm was paid for its work first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by supporters of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. The Times has checked on a number of the details included in the memos but has been unable to substantiate them.
The memos suggest that for many years, the Russian government of Mr. Putin has looked for ways to influence Mr. Trump, who has traveled repeatedly to Moscow to investigate real estate deals or to oversee the Miss Universe competition, which he owned for several years. Mr. Trump never completed any major deals in Russia, though he discussed them for years.
The former British intelligence officer who gathered the material about Mr. Trump is considered a competent and reliable operative with extensive experience in Russia, American officials said. But he passed on what he heard from Russian informants and others, and what they told him has not yet been vetted by American intelligence.
The memos describe sex videos involving prostitutes with Mr. Trump in a 2013 visit to a Moscow hotel. The videos were supposedly prepared as “kompromat,” or compromising material, with the possible goal of blackmailing Mr. Trump in the future.
The memos also suggest that Russian officials proposed various lucrative deals, essentially as disguised bribes in order to win influence over Mr. Trump.
The memos describe several purported meetings during the 2016 presidential campaign between Trump representatives and Russian officials to discuss matters of mutual interest, including the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.
The first hint of the F.B.I. investigation came in a Senate hearing on Tuesday in a series of questions from Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, to the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.
Mr. Wyden, trying to draw Mr. Comey out on information he may have heard during a classified briefing, asked whether the F.B.I. had investigated the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia. Mr. Comey demurred, saying he could not discuss any investigations that might or might not be underway. Mr. Wyden kept pressing, asking Mr. Comey to provide a written answer to the question before Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, because he feared there would be no declassification of the information once Mr. Trump took office.
After the hearing, Mr. Wyden posted on Twitter: “Director Comey refused to answer my question about whether the FBI has investigated Trump campaign contacts with Russia.”
The F.B.I. obtained the material long before the election, and some of the memos in the opposition research dossier are dated as early as June. But agents have struggled to confirm it, according to federal officials familiar with the investigation.
Allies of Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader from Nevada who retired at the end of the year, said the disclosures validated his call last summer for an investigation by the F.B.I. into Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia.
“The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” Mr. Reid wrote in a letter to Mr. Comey on Aug. 27.
Democrats on Tuesday night pressed for a thorough investigation of the claims in the memos. Representative Eric Swalwell of California, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, called for law enforcement to find out whether the Russian government had had any contact with Mr. Trump or his campaign.
“The president-elect has spoken a number of times, including after being presented with this evidence, in flattering ways about Russia and its dictator,” Mr. Swalwell said. “Considering the evidence of Russia hacking our democracy to his benefit, the president-elect would do a service to his presidency and our country by releasing his personal and business income taxes, as well as information on any global financial holdings.”
Was Trump's video filmed while he was in office? Like, LITERALLY in the oval office? THAT is why Clinton got pegged, not for every other incident before his career. While I will never sing Trump's accolades, I will point this little goal post moving out pretty quick. And I thought the main crux of the Clinton case was perjury, but I guess it would all depend on what your definition of the word "is" is...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and at least the "impeach Trump" movement is still alive...
Well to be fair the "impeach Obama" movement went on for all 8 years of his presidency, and now continues with undue everything he's done. so with all of Trumps shadiness I'm sure he'll give us plenty of legitimate reasons to impeach him. It's not so much the video, it's his ever increasing ties to russia that are being uncovered. So many ties that it will always call to question on who trump works for, Putin or Americans?
the mocking him for porn videos and golden showers is just an added bonus. For the first time in history we have the first family of porn. He has his video, She has a nice playboy layout which is probably going up quickly in value.
Dammit... I was already preparing myself Pence to take the office...
Also... 'Golden Shower'???? Really??!?! Cheeto Jesus is a notorious germophone. That should be the biggest red flag.
It didn't say he had a golden shower, it said they pissed on the bed where Obama had stayed. Trump may be a germaphobe (or not), but he's an extremely petty bastard, so I wouldn't put it passed him.
Still unconfirmed reports, of course, but anything that could bring him low and stop him from screwing over the rest of the world would have me dancing in the streets. Pence may be as bad or worse for American domestic policy, but damn, you can't save everybody, sorry guys...
A while back I pitched a line to a friend that tried to explain Trump's inexplicable absolution of Putin in the murder of 298 people on MH-17 that went something to the effect of the FSB probably having compromising footage of Trump in a coke party with the Bolshoi ballerina troupe. Of course the smoking gun (if there indeed is one) could be a bit more mundane (but not necessarily much more appealing) such as the fact that due to Trump's well-publicised bankruptcies Russian banks are one of the few places he can get financing for his projects, I never really put much more thought into that throwaway remark until now.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Also, the Editor-in-Chief of the website you linked is Laura Ingram, a Trump lackey that has had no problem using her position to fawn over Trump; I mean she's straight up said that she wants a part in his administration. So if you're going to bitch and complain about the "legitimacy" of a clickbait website, you should start by examining the journalistic integrity of your sources.
So instead of talking about BuzzFeed's lack of journalistic ethics, which other left wing outlets have noted, you'd rather deflect and attack the messenger. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Also, the Editor-in-Chief of the website you linked is Laura Ingram, a Trump lackey that has had no problem using her position to fawn over Trump; I mean she's straight up said that she wants a part in his administration. So if you're going to bitch and complain about the "legitimacy" of a clickbait website, you should start by examining the journalistic integrity of your sources.
So instead of talking about BuzzFeed's lack of journalistic ethics, which other left wing outlets have noted, you'd rather deflect and attack the messenger. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
You know Breotan, he did have a section right above the you deleted that sort of addresses that.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Except unlike Alex Jones and his ilk, BuzzFeed News plainly states that what they have is unverified and full of errors. A no point did they ever present this as the truth, which even your linked article admits, but somehow that doesn't stop the outrage that a fething clickbait site would dare publish something potentially damning about Glorious Leader.
Yeah, that particular attack in the article Breotan linked to was the point where political hackery reached an almost zen level.
I mean, I don't want to sound like I think the buzzfeed piece is worthy, or that it needed to be published. Just as the endless rumour monger gak about Clinton and her emails/foundation were unacceptable, I don't think the answer is found in applying the same to Trump scandals. There should be some standard applied before publication. But the buzzfeed piece was honest in saying the memo is real, but the allegations in the memo are unverified... which Breotan's link then complained about. That's just bizarre. "Ha ha! You stated in a plain and transparent way that the allegations in the memo are unverified! Gotcha!"
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Co'tor Shas wrote: You know Breotan, he did have a section right above the you deleted that sort of addresses that.
You mean the bit where he gave them a pass because they said the story was likely bogus? Even Mother Jones didn't give them a pass. Mother Fricking Jones.
sirlynchmob wrote: So apparently Trump has a sex tape that the Russians hold to ensure his good behavior towards them. Apparently trump likes the golden showers. So if Clinton is impeached because of his infidelity, than surely it should be the easiest thing ever to impeach trump and throw him out once the tape comes out right? my guess is we'll see the GOP accept, normalize and praise trump and sell out their own morals and convictions and pretend the tape doesn't exist even after everyone's seen it.
WASHINGTON — The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about Mr. Trump, two officials with knowledge of the briefing said.
The summary is based on memos generated by political operatives seeking to derail Mr. Trump’s candidacy. Details of the reports began circulating in the fall and were widely known among journalists and politicians in Washington.
The two-page summary, first reported by CNN, was presented as an appendix to the intelligence agencies’ report on Russian hacking efforts during the election, the officials said. The material was not corroborated, and The New York Times has not been able to confirm the claims. But intelligence agencies considered it so potentially explosive that they decided Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and congressional leaders needed to be told about it and informed that the agencies were actively investigating it.
Intelligence officials were concerned that the information would leak before they informed Mr. Trump of its existence, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the summary is classified and talking about it would be a felony.
On Tuesday night, Mr. Trump responded on Twitter: “FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!”
In an appearance recorded for NBC’s “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, Kellyanne Conway, said of the claims in the opposition research memos, “He has said he is not aware of that.”
Since the intelligence agencies’ report on Friday that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had ordered the hacking and leaks of Democratic emails in order to hurt Mrs. Clinton and help Mr. Trump, the president-elect and his aides have said that Democrats are trying to mar his election victory.
The decision of top intelligence officials to give the president, the president-elect and the so-called Gang of Eight — Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress and the intelligence committees — what they know to be unverified, defamatory material was extremely unusual.
The appendix summarized opposition research memos prepared mainly by a retired British intelligence operative for a Washington political and corporate research firm. The firm was paid for its work first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by supporters of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. The Times has checked on a number of the details included in the memos but has been unable to substantiate them.
The memos suggest that for many years, the Russian government of Mr. Putin has looked for ways to influence Mr. Trump, who has traveled repeatedly to Moscow to investigate real estate deals or to oversee the Miss Universe competition, which he owned for several years. Mr. Trump never completed any major deals in Russia, though he discussed them for years.
The former British intelligence officer who gathered the material about Mr. Trump is considered a competent and reliable operative with extensive experience in Russia, American officials said. But he passed on what he heard from Russian informants and others, and what they told him has not yet been vetted by American intelligence.
The memos describe sex videos involving prostitutes with Mr. Trump in a 2013 visit to a Moscow hotel. The videos were supposedly prepared as “kompromat,” or compromising material, with the possible goal of blackmailing Mr. Trump in the future.
The memos also suggest that Russian officials proposed various lucrative deals, essentially as disguised bribes in order to win influence over Mr. Trump.
The memos describe several purported meetings during the 2016 presidential campaign between Trump representatives and Russian officials to discuss matters of mutual interest, including the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.
The first hint of the F.B.I. investigation came in a Senate hearing on Tuesday in a series of questions from Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, to the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.
Mr. Wyden, trying to draw Mr. Comey out on information he may have heard during a classified briefing, asked whether the F.B.I. had investigated the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia. Mr. Comey demurred, saying he could not discuss any investigations that might or might not be underway. Mr. Wyden kept pressing, asking Mr. Comey to provide a written answer to the question before Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, because he feared there would be no declassification of the information once Mr. Trump took office.
After the hearing, Mr. Wyden posted on Twitter: “Director Comey refused to answer my question about whether the FBI has investigated Trump campaign contacts with Russia.”
The F.B.I. obtained the material long before the election, and some of the memos in the opposition research dossier are dated as early as June. But agents have struggled to confirm it, according to federal officials familiar with the investigation.
Allies of Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader from Nevada who retired at the end of the year, said the disclosures validated his call last summer for an investigation by the F.B.I. into Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia.
“The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” Mr. Reid wrote in a letter to Mr. Comey on Aug. 27.
Democrats on Tuesday night pressed for a thorough investigation of the claims in the memos. Representative Eric Swalwell of California, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, called for law enforcement to find out whether the Russian government had had any contact with Mr. Trump or his campaign.
“The president-elect has spoken a number of times, including after being presented with this evidence, in flattering ways about Russia and its dictator,” Mr. Swalwell said. “Considering the evidence of Russia hacking our democracy to his benefit, the president-elect would do a service to his presidency and our country by releasing his personal and business income taxes, as well as information on any global financial holdings.”
Woah woah woah, I am amazed that the CIA seems to have found out a much more entertaining but possibly almost as efficient way as the [REDACTED - TOP SECRET] solution.
And yeah, being blackmailed by a foreign power seems like a pretty big deal to me. Not sure if it works for impeachment because I don't know enough about the US system.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Breotan wrote: So instead of talking about BuzzFeed's lack of journalistic ethics, which other left wing outlets have noted, you'd rather deflect and attack the messenger. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
If you don't want discussion of attack pieces like the one you linked to distracting from discussion of the failings of the buzzfeed article, then maybe don't post mediocre attack pieces?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sirlynchmob wrote: So many ties that it will always call to question on who trump works for, Putin or Americans?
Let's just be clear here: whoever Trump works for it is NOT Americans. At best he works for himself. More likely he works for the wealthy (that is a third GOP's platform as I recall, next to a third 'oppose democrats' and a third 'random gak with a few tidbits of relevancy thrown in') and/or just doesn't even know why he's doing it. Maybe he works for Russia. But at no point should anyone delude themselves that Trump works for the American people.
Co'tor Shas wrote: You know Breotan, he did have a section right above the you deleted that sort of addresses that.
You mean the bit where he gave them a pass because they said the story was likely bogus? Even Mother Jones didn't give them a pass. Mother Fricking Jones.
I mean the part where he points out that they presented this as an unconfirmed account. The part where literally everybody keeps saying "unconfirmed" or "alleged". The part where they didn't say "this is definitely true". I mean buzzfeed is still gak, but try and be accurate with what part you criticize.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: You know Breotan, he did have a section right above the you deleted that sort of addresses that.
You mean the bit where he gave them a pass because they said the story was likely bogus? Even Mother Jones didn't give them a pass. Mother Fricking Jones.
I didn't give them a pass, I just pointed out the facts that you ignored so you could be outraged.
Like usual.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Breotan wrote: You mean the bit where he gave them a pass because they said the story was likely bogus? Even Mother Jones didn't give them a pass. Mother Fricking Jones.
Your argument seems to boil down to saying that because the buzzfeed article has issues, then all complaints about the buzzfeed article are valid. That's obviously nonsense.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Yes, and in mentioning it I immediately noted how the sanctions against Iraq were very different to those against Russia. You ignored that.
I contest the suggestion that there can be major sanctions that don't harm the people more than their rulers because the powerful can more easily shield themselves and because you keep saying stuff like:
Yes, crashed the ruble and cost oil producers and other oligarch operated companies a fortune. You started talking about collapsing an economy and other nonsense.
The currency crashing would logically affect everyone who uses it, all imports/exports and everyone who somehow relies on that flow of goods and currency. Continuing and expanding sanctions that you claim have already crashed the economy would logically collapse it which would in turn most harm the people who work day to day. These are reasonable conclusions to draw from the scenario you paint.
No, but what you do constantly is ignore parts of posts that don't suit your pre-determined conclusions, or if a post is in any way unclear you assume the worst possible light without asking for clarity. This makes arguing with you an exercise in constantly having to explain away the fictional version of myself you have created.
Continue and expand the economic sanctions already in place, which have already crashed the Russian economy.
?
How would the economy crashing not affect the people? How would going beyond the point of simply crashing it not affect the people? Your insistence that talk of collapsing the economy is nonsense because you merely want to crash it and then crash it again doesn't check out. You claim that sanctions against Russia only target its ruling class while cheerfully going on about how the currency is crashing and should be brought down further. How is that not contradictory? Do only the rich Russians use money?
Ustrello wrote: Its amazing what 20 years of anti hillary propaganda will do
Republican propaganda convinced Obama voters and Democrats in "blue" states, people who should have been Hillary's ardent supporters, to stay home? I doubt that. Republican propaganda probably got more Republicans to turn out and overlook Trump's flaws. ... ... .
There was plenty of propaganda. Obviously it isn't possible to prove causation, but, the voting figures show lower turnout by registered Democrats, largely among the young Bernie supporters, and the Republican vote did not increase. Clinton's loss was due to lower Democrat turnout.
Regardless of Buzzfeed posting the memos, evidently, the CIA and FBI is worried enough about them to have included a summary of them in the report they presented to Obama, Trump and the "gang of eight" largely based on the past of the former MI6 agent who originally wrote them as part of opposition research paid for by Trump's primary opponents. So there's that, I guess.
Buzzfeed was just scooped by CNN so they decided to go one further and actually post the full memos for clickbait.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/11 08:00:04
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Also, the Editor-in-Chief of the website you linked is Laura Ingram, a Trump lackey that has had no problem using her position to fawn over Trump; I mean she's straight up said that she wants a part in his administration. So if you're going to bitch and complain about the "legitimacy" of a clickbait website, you should start by examining the journalistic integrity of your sources.
So instead of talking about BuzzFeed's lack of journalistic ethics, which other left wing outlets have noted, you'd rather deflect and attack the messenger. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
BuzzFeed's lack of journalistic ethics are not the story.
He read a well written piece attacking the buzzfeed story, and it fired him up enough that he posted it here while still riding a wave of crusading fury against the darn lefties. Of course, that crusading fury stopped him from noticing that the clever writing was really just working to conceal the dodgy non-logic in the article's attack.
On one level it's no big deal. Stuff like this happens to everyone from time to time. The problem is that when you do make such a mistake, you should just put your hand up, then everyone can move on. Not get pissy with the person who pointed out the problem in your article.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
What's the big deal anyway if true? It's not like indulging in a pee party with Russian prostitutes is as bad as shooting somebody on the street in NYC. He's got nothing to worry about.
Rosebuddy wrote: The currency crashing would logically affect everyone who uses it, all imports/exports and everyone who somehow relies on that flow of goods and currency. Continuing and expanding sanctions that you claim have already crashed the economy would logically collapse it which would in turn most harm the people who work day to day. These are reasonable conclusions to draw from the scenario you paint.
There's an obvious issue of extent here. In Iraq essential medicines were banned. In Russia the ruble got weaker, meaning people would have to pay more for television sets. Of course there will also be greater unemployment and similar things, but trying to frame the latter as inflicting suffering on a people, when the government of those people annexed the Crimea, sent troops in to the Ukraine, and continue to commit atrocities in Syria is fething laughable.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Breotan wrote: So instead of talking about BuzzFeed's lack of journalistic ethics, which other left wing outlets have noted, you'd rather deflect and attack the messenger.
I don't care about BuzzFeed's journalistic ethics and I seriously doubt you do either. It's just rich that you post a piece complaining about a clickbait site's lack of ethics from another site run by a Donald Trump surrogate that is itching to worm her way into his administration. That site is so clearly biased and it's funny that you probably failed to realize the irony in this whole thing.
However, BuzzFeed's ethics (or lack thereof) aren't the story here.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Care to explain that one a little more in depth?
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Gordon Shumway wrote: What's the big deal anyway if true? It's not like indulging in a pee party with Russian prostitutes is as bad as shooting somebody on the street in NYC. He's got nothing to worry about.
On twitter Matthew Yglesias offered up this gem;
"Maybe Putin is blackmailing Trump with a tape where he mocks POWs and the disabled while confessing to routine sexual assault."
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
