Intel: Russia has Compromising info on Trump.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

... I've not heard anyone saying that Wikileaks is 'fake news'. It's not 'news'. They're not reporting on anything... They're just like, "Here's what people are giving us."

Further, I've not seen news outlets, but rather just Clinton partisans, railing against most of what you're saying here as far as 'fake news'. I've seen people in the news say that there aren't facts to support the conclusions being draw by the likes of the Infowars and the Breitbarts out there from those data dumps, but that's, once again, entirely different.



Wikileaks is not 'fake news', on the basis that it's not news. Further, I've not seen other mainstream media outlets taking on Wikileaks, but rather, if anything, the documents themselves.

One of them that I am refering to: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/...y-shady-group/

[TZucchini]

I certainly believe your perception of it to be true. The reality is that the term bled all over the news that contained opposing political evidence, which transformed this into a terrible fiasco.

Yes, but that wasn't the fault of legitimate media outlets. It was the fault of politicians, like Donald Trump, who scream FAKE NEWS whenever they read a story that they don't like.

[Shadowmelded]

One of them that I am refering to: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/...y-shady-group/

The article doesn't claim that Wikileaks puts out fake news, just that they're part of the Russian misinformation campaign mentioned in the article.

[Draco-Onis]

I am not knowledgeable enough of his people having relationships with Russia outside economic investments, so I cannot comment on this.

Fair enough please look up

Paul Manafort
Rex Tillerson
Trump Soho
Carter Page

It's a long list.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Yes, but that wasn't the fault of legitimate media outlets. It was the fault of politicians, like Donald Trump, who scream FAKE NEWS whenever they read a story that they don't like.

Or Hillary, for that matter. But mainstream media outlets did write fake news and, while I think it was made with mostly good intentions, some were clearly made to discredit. Like Washington Post.

- - - Updated - - -

The article doesn't claim that Wikileaks puts out fake news, just that they're part of the Russian misinformation campaign mentioned in the article.

Which was later redacted because it wasn't true, which is the point.

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough please look up

Paul Manafort
Rex Tillerson
Trump Soho
Carter Page

It's a long list.

I did hear of Tillerson who has huge monetary investment in Russia. I haven't heard of the others. But while some do have political gains to be made there, Hillary had members with close ties in Saudi Arabia. The question is more if that will interfere with their ability to do their work for the US.

[TZucchini]

Or Hillary, for that matter. But mainstream media outlets did write fake news and, while I think it was made with mostly good intentions, some were clearly made to discredit. Like Washington Post.

I haven't seen any. Do you have example?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

I haven't seen any. Do you have example?

The post just before your other post.

Or this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.02b2167b00ed

Edited for direct link, not allegations.

[Draco-Onis]

I did hear of Tillerson who has huge monetary investment in Russia. I haven't heard of the others. But while some do have political gains to be made there, Hillary had members with close ties in Saudi Arabia. The question is more if that will interfere with their ability to do their work for the US.

We are talking about Trump's abnormal obsession with Russia not Hillary Clinton who is irrelevant, the media did not lay Russia at Trump's feet he is the one who did this to himself. It's pretty obvious that these people are tainted since they are economically inclined to put policies in place that will benefit them and by extension Russia. I am sure that all of them will lie through their teeth during confirmation just like Tillerson did.

[Kiri]

On this, a little bit less. Medias are separate entities from the people which he represent. Because of your two-parties system, you're bound to have situations and disagreements with some sphere of your society. That he puts the mending of long hurt relationships make some sense politically. Aknowledging medias that tries their damnest to bring him down would've been diplomatic, too, but Trump being Trump, his reaction is not outlandish.

The media, maybe. But if the POTUS insults and attacks a media outlet that is currently present and does not even give them a voice in response it is a very troubling thing. And he also insulted the intelligence services once again, comparing them to some of the worst people in history - once again in a setting where they could not respond.
Yet what Russia has done gets the weakest and non-committal response possible.

It is funny though that just because of Trump being who he is that somehow becomes less outlandish.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

We are talking about Trump's abnormal obsession with Russia not Hillary Clinton who is irrelevant, the media did not lay Russia at Trump's feet he is the one who did this to himself. It's pretty obvious that these people are tainted since they are economically inclined to put policies in place that will benefit them and by extension Russia. I am sure that all of them will lie through their teeth during confirmation just like Tillerson did.

I'm talking about Hillary to make a comparison. Until we hear more, until we get to see more, it's just wild speculations. Mind you, I'm not saying they are baseless speculations, but you're giving intent that we have no idea if they will hold up officially.

And with the press that we have, if anything ever come close to a conflict of interest, it will be all over the news. But for that, the media has to stop crying wolf every minute, or when it'll happen for real, people will just ignore it.

[bergmann620]

The article doesn't claim that Wikileaks puts out fake news, just that they're part of the Russian misinformation campaign mentioned in the article.

The article doesn't even claim that... it merely claims that one of the research groups they talked to considered Wikileaks to be at least somewhat complicit in the Russian campaign. Just because something is true doesn't mean it can't also be used as propaganda....

People are conflating and abusing events and vocabulary so fucking bad in this thread specifically and in life in general that it's making me want to fucking scream at my desk.

[TZucchini]

The post just before your other post.

Or this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.02b2167b00ed

Edited for direct link, not allegations.

But that's not fake news. We know for a fact that Russia engaged in this type of behavior. James Clapper stated as much publicly.

Their source may be shady, sure. But the News paper even issued an Editors note based on certain concerns within the article.

This isn't fake news. Not even close. And the accusation that it is fake news is part of the problem.

[Shadowmelded]

Which was later redacted because it wasn't true, which is the point.

I'm not seeing where that happened. Your article claims they stopped making claims about who their allies were and the original article says that people on the list deny it and that some sites were removed from the list. Wikileaks is still on it.

The article doesn't even claim that... it merely claims that one of the research groups they talked to considered Wikileaks to be at least somewhat complicit in the Russian campaign. Just because something is true doesn't mean it can't also be used as propaganda....

People are conflating and abusing events and vocabulary so fucking bad in this thread specifically and in life in general that it's making me want to fucking scream at my desk.

Yeah you're right, I misspoke. The article doesn't claim the allegations are true vis a vis wikileaks, the people who they're reporting on do.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

The media, maybe. But if the POTUS insults and attacks a media outlet that is currently present and does not even give them a voice in response it is a very troubling thing. And he also insulted the intelligence services once again, comparing them to some of the worst people in history - once again in a setting where they could not respond.
Yet what Russia has done gets the weakest and non-committal response possible.

It is funny though that just because of Trump being who he is that somehow becomes less outlandish.

Hillary did call half of Trump's voters a "Basket of Deplorables". And these people never had the chance to speak up against it.

Now, that does not minimize Trump's reaction, though. I don't necessarily agree with his decision to ignore the CNN reporter, but I have to say that it felt like retribution. Now, if he continually keep ignoring them, it's another issue, but we just have one instance where he did that.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not seeing where that happened. Your article claims they stopped making claims about who their allies were and the original article says that people on the list deny it and that some sites were removed from the list. Wikileaks is still on it.

See their editorial message added after the act.

- - - Updated - - -

But that's not fake news. We know for a fact that Russia engaged in this type of behavior. James Clapper stated as much publicly.

Their source may be shady, sure. But the News paper even issued an Editors note based on certain concerns within the article.

This isn't fake news. Not even close. And the accusation that it is fake news is part of the problem.

Russia hacked the electrical grid?

The group that made the allegations against russia's "outlets" was actually done by a very strong hillary supporter. Let me find the source, I'll post it as soon as I can find it back.

[Shadowmelded]

See their editorial message added after the act.

I did, I mentioned it in my reply:

the original article says that people on the list deny it and that some sites were removed from the list. Wikileaks is still on it.

[LaserSharkDFB]

I'm talking about Hillary to make a comparison. Until we hear more, until we get to see more, it's just wild speculations. Mind you, I'm not saying they are baseless speculations, but you're giving intent that we have no idea if they will hold up officially.

And with the press that we have, if anything ever come close to a conflict of interest, it will be all over the news. But for that, the media has to stop crying wolf every minute, or when it'll happen for real, people will just ignore it.

As if Trump's supporters won't ignore it anyway. This isn't a matter of 'crying wolf', this is a matter of a wolf walking straight toward the sheep pen or corral or whatever for a year and a half, and professional wolf spotters shouting 'hey, look, there's a wolf', and the wolf being let in anyway, and then the wolf says 'I'm going to eat those sheep', and then the people that let the wolf in say 'but they were wrong about what color the wolf was, so he may not eat the sheep'.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

I did, I mentioned it in my reply:

Indeed. It doesn't make it any more true: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...usting-w452543

As if Trump's supporters won't ignore it anyway. This isn't a matter of 'crying wolf', this is a matter of a wolf walking straight toward the sheep pen or corral or whatever for a year and a half, and professional wolf spotters shouting 'hey, look, there's a wolf', and the wolf being let in anyway, and then the wolf says 'I'm going to eat those sheep', and then the people that let the wolf in say 'but they were wrong about what color the wolf was, so he may not eat the sheep'.

Hardcore Trump supporters will be hardcore trump supporters no matter what. I'm speaking about moderates, people who won't stick to Trump through and through.

[Shadowmelded]

Indeed. It doesn't make it any more true: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...usting-w452543

It also doesn't make it less true. It's unproven.

[TZucchini]

Russia hacked the electrical grid?

The group that made the allegations against russia's "outlets" was actually done by a very strong hillary supporter. Let me find the source, I'll post it as soon as I can find it back.

My mistake, I was focusing on a different article you posted.

Regarding the electrical grid claims. Again, not fake news. It's 100% true that officials believed this. More evidence came to light, and they corrected their story. The article even says as much "An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid."

You're having a tremendously difficult time seeing the difference between 100% fabricated news and the incorrect reporting of actual facts.

This is part of the problem.

[LaserSharkDFB]

My mistake, I was focusing on a different article you posted.

Regarding the electrical grid claims. Again, not fake news. It's 100% true that officials believed this. More evidence came to light, and they corrected their story. The article even says as much "An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid."

You're having a tremendously difficult time seeing the difference between 100% fabricated news and the incorrect reporting of actual facts.

This is part of the problem.

That's conservative SOP. If you're being attacked by something, turn it around and use it against your opponent, regardless of whether or not it applies. The media says 'these articles with absolutely no basis in fact are being presented as news, and that's fake news', and conservatives use projection judo to say 'these articles that criticize us have small details wrong, and that's fake news'. It's hard to fight against something when there are so many completely dishonest people opposing you.