Intel: Russia has Compromising info on Trump.

[Wells]

Never have been successfully claimed as false, endorsed by several countries and intelligence all over the world. Better?

Not sure why this is anyone's burden but Assange's.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Are you asserting, that the evidance presented here by CNN, is responsible for causing Wells to make a false assertion? Due to the way it was presented and not any assertion made?

Dude... as someone defending Wikileaks... you are walking some dangerous grounds... You do realize you are accusing CNN here, with the same exact argument used against Wikileaks of DNC and Podesta emails?

Stop assuming and ask instead. I've tagged you. I'm not pointing Wells personally as being the sole perpetrator.

[Wells]

1. CNN has been in hot water. I'm not in Wells head, but I deplore the timing of this piece of "evidence".
2. The lighting, the context of the picture make people believe that the documents contains nothing.
3. The comments on the twitter back my claim that it is made with that purpose.

No, the photo makes people believe there is nothing. You're just rambling about clouds and shit.

[May90]

But the truth exists independent of your effort, either as a consumer or a provider.

So a poorly presented truth is still the truth, and a brilliantly presented lie is still a lie.

What was released by CNN was pretty damn close to the truth, but when you add in the assumptions made ABOUT their report from other sources (Buzzfeed, 4chan etc) then you find that CNN's report ended up poorly received, but still the truth.

This isn't what I was talking about though. My point was: Wikileaks, as an information provider claiming its information to be truth, should provide some kind of proof of that information being truth. Taking everything they publish as truth by default, just because they have never been caught in providing false information, is logically fallible.

Again, no one has ever proven, for example, Scientologists to be wrong, or David Icke to be wrong. This isn't an argument in support of their words meaning anything and being worth paying any attention to.

They may be publishing genuine documents, for all we know. Or they may be publishing ingenuine ones. Truth exists, but we can't deduce it merely from their documents and the fact that they have never been proven to be wrong.

[Nihilanth]

Because doing that is indeed a good desicion... amirite? I cant understand the furious blowjobs thar trumpistas does to putin. Its sad and hilarious at the same time. HE DOESNT CARE ABOUT THE US! his ideal scenario is the downfall of your country and you people are so stupid that you cant see that

It's better for the US to have amicable relationships with Russia than not.

[Felya]

Stop assuming and ask instead. I've tagged you. I'm not pointing Wells personally as being the sole perpetrator.

I didn't say you did, that's you assuming. I only said Wells, because he is the example here. He is the one in this thread, making an assertion. As you can see in my Wikileaks comparison, it's not just Wells. So... touché?

With that cleared up, care to take another shot at my questions?

WTF is 'I tagged you'?

[schwarzkopf]

Don't panic folks - TOTUS has this under control:

[Zandalarian Paladin]

I didn't say you did, that's you assuming. I only said Wells, because he is the example here. He is the one in this thread, making an assertion. As you can see in my Wikileaks comparison, it's not just Wells. So... touché?

With that cleared up, care to take another shot at my questions?

WTF is 'I tagged you'?

I've linked your name on a post where the point I was making was literally made by another user on these boards.

That is so you can receive a notification with your name on the post.

Like this. @Felya

[Felya]

I've linked your name on a post where the point I was making was literally made by another user on these boards.

Thanks for the explanation. Now that even this part is cleared up. Take another shot at my questions?

[slitheroutfromtherocks]

Not overly surprising, but apparently the stacks of paper and envelopes on the table during Trumps press conference, the 'proof he is divesting himself of any conflict of interest regarding his businesses' was all blank.

Fake news. No wonder you didn't include a source it's one "news outlet" that wrote an article apparently sourced from one twitter pic by CNN who don't seem to have ran the story.

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/stat...98681643995136

One can argue that they may well be blank but there is no proof either way and letting people take photo's could leak personal information.

[bergmann620]

1. CNN has been in hot water. I'm not in Wells head, but I deplore the timing of this piece of "evidence".
2. The lighting, the context of the picture make people believe that the documents contains nothing.
3. The comments on the twitter back my claim that it is made with that purpose.

The photo is just a photo. It doesn't make anyone believe anything. Stop trying to take peoples' agency away.

The comments on Twitter are much more indicative of peoples' beliefs and assumptions RE: Trump than they are the photo or CNN in general.

[Felya]

@BloodElf4Life Just to make it abundantly clear. I am saying that your accusation of CNN putting out real information, presented in a way that could result in anyone making wild assertions... should sound very familiar...

[schwarzkopf]

If Russia has something on Trump - it won't be some lewd sex acts, he has already been shamed for downright illegal sex acts with no repercussions.

No - Trump's soft spot is his financial status, that's where the real meat would be on Trump.

That's why I doubt the leaks as they don't seem to show any strong suggestion on what Russia might REALLY have on him, just some vague dirt much less harmful than Trump himself has said.

[Wells]

Fake news. No wonder you didn't include a source it's one "news outlet" that wrote an article apparently sourced from one twitter pic by CNN who don't seem to have ran the story.

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/stat...98681643995136

One can argue that they may well be blank but there is no proof either way and letting people take photo's could leak personal information.

What part is fake? The stacks of unlabeled folders? The papers with no ink on them where we would expect to see even a little bit?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

@BloodElf4Life Just to make it abundantly clear. I am saying that your accusation of CNN putting out real information, presented in a way that could result in anyone making wild assertions... should sound very familiar...

I'll answer soon(ish) I'm conversing with a friend and typing at the same time is not very great for that.

[Felya]

What part is fake? The stacks of unlabeled folders? The papers with no ink on them where we would expect to see even a little bit?

Should I buy Trump a surface?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Shills will always call others something they aren't for shits and giggles.

See?

But no.

Wikileaks is not comparable. You cannot possibly compare a publisher that posted during 10 years documents that has never been proven as false. Wikileaks has a lot of publishing ethics. You may criticize its head, you may criticize the people who leaks, but the documents released are a 100% genuine.

The only irony here is people being unable to make the difference between a publisher who has a pristine reputation and another which has not. And the first is Wikileaks. Guess which comes for the second definition.

- - - Updated - - -



Wait, what accusations? I'm speaking that you chose to use a CNN picture. The claim is yours.

Yeah, you certainly have made yourself out to be a top notch shill for Trump. Tons of apologism, no desire for "truth", just a want to hide it.

Nothing has necessarily proven wikileaks TRUE either. There's no verification that anything hasn't been altered. You also have no proof that everything the entire intelligence community is saying is fake either.

So keep on shilling.

[slitheroutfromtherocks]

What part is fake? The stacks of unlabeled folders? The papers with no ink on them where we would expect to see even a little bit?

No one was allowed to look in the folders to tell if they're real or not. They very well could be blank then again seeing as no one was allowed to look in them there could be real. Like I said CNN didn't even run the story that they're fake one source did.

[Felya]

If Russia has something on Trump - it won't be some lewd sex acts, he has already been shamed for downright illegal sex acts with no repercussions.

No - Trump's soft spot is his financial status, that's where the real meat would be on Trump.

That's why I doubt the leaks as they don't seem to show any strong suggestion on what Russia might REALLY have on him, just some vague dirt much less harmful than Trump himself has said.

Yeah, but we live at a time of Pizza rats molesting children. People want sensationalism... I bet what ever he has to hide is in his tax returns... simple as that...

[Ahovv]

Yeah, you certainly have made yourself out to be a top notch shill for Trump. Tons of apologism, no desire for "truth", just a want to hide it.

Am I a Trump shill for wanting to see actual evidence before coming to a conclusion? You know, positive claims and all that.

Because so far, the evidence which *has* been provided does nothing to directly link the Russian government to these hackings. And beyond that, why aren't we asking our own government how much hacking they do of other countries? We should know by now they aren't innocent in that regard.