Intel: Russia has Compromising info on Trump.

[Miztickow]

This is another example of someone who actually didn't read the article, who just skimmed over the details so they don't understand the context or the fact that we are talking about two (technically three) things at once.

You sir have, the individual who has the hubris to say, that people who disagree with you politically must be stupid people who get all of their information from 4chan (even though the main people who vote for trump don't typically use computers or have internet access at home but whatever. Its a funny joke i guess so i see why you went with it) is the reason why Donald Trump won. People like you created the climate where people just want to piss people like yourself off.

That's a shitty reason to vote for someone and makes it sound like Donald Drumpf will be a shitty president because he got elected as a joke.

[Darkeon]

People still trying to reason with the hatred echo-chamber? :P

[Tijuana]

That's a shitty reason to vote for someone and makes it sound like Donald Drumpf will be a shitty president because he got elected as a joke.

Your party said Lincoln was a shitty president too. I don't say that to make comparisons to Trump but, it's not like you ever intended to objectively judge a Republican presidency anyway. If Obama had an R by his name, you would hate him.

- - - Updated - - -

People still trying to reason with the hatred echo-chamber? :P

We are gluttons for punishment.

[Miztickow]

Your party said Lincoln was a shitty president too. I don't say that to make comparisons to Trump but, it's not like you ever intended to objectively judge a Republican presidency anyway. If Obama had an R by his name, you would hate him.

- - - Updated - - -



We are gluttons for punishment.

You're making a lot of assumptions about me.

[Tijuana]

You're making a lot of assumptions about me.

Nice non-post. This this is in fact a discussion forum, you might consider telling me where I got you wrong.

[May90]

Do you not see WHY that is though? If no media can be trusted, people resort to whatever news suits them the best. The root problem is dishonest and corrupt media, not the fact that bull shit media exists. Fake news has always existed. The tool to combat fake news was always reputable media outlets, of which there are none remaining.

Most of these people don't care about trustworthiness of anything anyway, they just agree with everything that they want to be true.

Besides "Mathematicians are sometimes wrong and biased, so I turned to shamanism instead" is a funny justification of being detached from reality.

[SirPiken]

The first page of this thread is fucking hilarious. Such a lefty wank fest to someone's watersports fanfiction.

[DeadmanWalking]

Here is an article about the mi6 agent in question. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/opinio...ley/index.html

- - - Updated - - -

I have a report that DeadmanWalking is 14 year old and lives in his mother's attic eating chikkn tendies. These are not yet verified but I am going to publish these reports.

Please prove hand me a verified news article proving these allegations to be false, otherwise they must be true, right?

(P.S: Buzzfeed is the person who broke the news. not CNN. CNN is reporting on Buzzfeed's report. You seem to only know part of the story but you are acting like you know more than people who know the entire story.)

Oops, did someone say something that didn't fit your uninformed opinion and it triggered you to lash out? Sowwy.

Again, CNN reported on the fact that intelligence agencies gave a briefing to Obama and Trump about an uncorroborated report of Russia saying they have personal and financial dirt on Trump. They didn't report on the Buzzfeed thing until after buzzfeed dropped the report on the internet in response to CNN reporting on the briefing. I know, I was sitting there when they broke the story. CNN did not say anything about Buzzfeed in the original report.

This has 0% to do with CNN saying the allegations are true.
This has 100% to do with reporting that intelligence agencies took this information, true or not, to the pres and pres-elect.

But you get hung up on the potentially true/potentially false allegations.

[Tijuana]

Most of these people don't care about trustworthiness of anything anyway, they just agree with everything that they want to be true.

Besides "Mathematicians are sometimes wrong and biased, so I turned to shamanism instead" is a funny justification of being detached from reality.

I agree. They see the low trust in media as the issue, instead of the result. There was a recent poll that showed the only two entities with lower approval ratings than Trump, were the media, and Putin. Congress was merely one rung above Trump. Yet, they would have us believe that they are the arbiters of truth and righteousness. Get real.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is an article about the mi6 agent in question. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/opinio...ley/index.html

- - - Updated - - -



Oops, did someone say something that didn't fit your uninformed opinion and it triggered you to lash out? Sowwy.

Again, CNN reported on the fact that intelligence agencies gave a briefing to Obama and Trump about an uncorroborated report of Russia saying they have personal and financial dirt on Trump. They didn't report on the Buzzfeed thing until after buzzfeed dropped the report on the internet in response to CNN reporting on the briefing. I know, I was sitting there when they broke the story. CNN did not say anything about Buzzfeed in the original report.

This has 0% to do with CNN saying the allegations are true.
This has 100% to do with reporting that intelligence agencies took this information, true or not, to the pres and pres-elect.

But you get hung up on the potentially true/potentially false allegations.

The bottom line is, CNN's thinly veiled hit job COMPLETELY blew up in their face. Regardless of how much they deny it, I assure you their board of directors is not amused. I would not have wanted to be in middle management there, these past couple of days. Is it unfair that Trump, his staff, and others have conflated the Buzzfeed and the CNN stories? Yep. Do they (CNN) deserve to be treated in kind, to how they acted? Yep.

[May90]

I agree. They see the low trust in media as the issue, instead of the result. There was a recent poll that showed the only two entities with lower approval ratings than Trump, were the media, and Putin. Congress was merely one rung above Trump. Yet, they would have us believe that they are the arbiters of truth and righteousness. Get real.

Approval rating doesn't correlate with trustworthiness. In Nazi Germany, Jewish newspapers had very low approval ratings, for example, just because they were Jewish. See, the thing is: nationalist marginals pissed by the fact that the mainstream media do not take their narrative seriously do not compromise the media or make it any less trustworthy, they only compromise themselves.

This story is a good illustration. The article is crystal clear, yet many people still manage to not read it right, then proceed to bash it and claim that it illustrates how untrustworthy media are nowadays. Media aren't to blame for the fact that some consumers can't read, the consumers are.

[Berengil]

The first page of this thread is fucking hilarious. Such a lefty wank fest to someone's watersports fanfiction.

I have this audio in my head of Bill the Butcher saying that in Daniel Day-Lewis's voice now. Thank you Sirpiken. Much lulz.

[Vyxn]

None of this makes any sense, And I would like anyone to attempt to make any sense of it

Ok the claim is the Russians gave this compromising information to this ex MI6 private investigator hired by never Trumpers then by the DNC for opposition research (dig up dirt on Trump) and that information was obtained during the summer of last year

here is the question

why in the hell would the Russians do that if it was Trump who they wanted to win the presidency?

[Tijuana]

Approval rating doesn't correlate with trustworthiness. In Nazi Germany, Jewish newspapers had very low approval ratings, for example, just because they were Jewish. See, the thing is: nationalist marginals pissed by the fact that the mainstream media do not take their narrative seriously do not compromise the media or make it any less trustworthy, they only compromise themselves.

This story is a good illustration. The article is crystal clear, yet many people still manage to not read it right, then proceed to bash it and claim that it illustrates how untrustworthy media are nowadays. Media aren't to blame for the fact that some consumers can't read, the consumers are.

I would argue the opposite, this time. IMHO, the smart people in the room are those who see this hit piece from CNN for what it is, not the thinly veiled technicality that separates it from the Buzzfeed story.

Trump does this all time as well. How many times have you heard this sort of thing: "I won't say she is a terrible person. Other people are saying she is terrible, but I won't insult her. I mean, I could insult her, and say she is terrible, but I won't do that".

What CNN just did, is EXACTLY the same as that. They spent a whole day saying on TV that they don't have proof about this story but, holy cow if it's true it would be such big news so, lets have a ratings bonanza at the expense of our own credibility.

[May90]

None of this makes any sense, And I would like anyone to attempt to make any sense of it

Ok the claim is the Russians gave this compromising information to this ex MI6 private investigator hired by never Trumpers then by the DNC for opposition research (dig up dirt on Trump) and that information was obtained during the summer of last year

here is the question

why in the hell would the Russians do that if it was Trump who they wanted to win the presidency?

The guy used to work in Russia a lot and obtained a lot of contacts there. Contacts of that nature often leak sensitive information, when it is to someone's gain. This way, for example, Litvinenko in the UK kept collecting the data compromising Putin's regime, through former acquaintances who supported his cause - until he was poisoned in an "accident".

Really, this story is much more typical than many people seem to realize.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

None of this makes any sense, And I would like anyone to attempt to make any sense of it

Ok the claim is the Russians gave this compromising information to this ex MI6 private investigator hired by never Trumpers then by the DNC for opposition research (dig up dirt on Trump) and that information was obtained during the summer of last year

here is the question

why in the hell would the Russians do that if it was Trump who they wanted to win the presidency?

If what you say is true, then logically the most direct link I can see is to discredit the anti-Trump side with false allegations. The document contains so many things easily disprovable that it'd be entirely logical to assume this.

I can see a few other reasons though, like taking direct revenge against actors that have hurt Russia in the past.

[May90]

I would argue the opposite, this time. IMHO, the smart people in the room are those who see this hit piece from CNN for what it is, not the thinly veiled technicality that separates it from the Buzzfeed story.

Trump does this all time as well. How many times have you heard this sort of thing: "I won't say she is a terrible person. Other people are saying she is terrible, but I won't insult her. I mean, I could insult her, and say she is terrible, but I won't do that".

What CNN just did, is EXACTLY the same as that. They spent a whole day saying on TV that they don't have proof about this story but, holy cow if it's true it would be such big news so, lets have a ratings bonanza at the expense of our own credibility.

The smart people in the room are the ones who see any article for what it is, without any prejudice based on who published it. I don't know anything about the TV, I haven't watched one in 9 years - but this thread is about the article, so whatever's been happening on TV is irrelevant.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

The smart people in the room are the ones who see any article for what it is, without any prejudice based on who published it. I don't know anything about the TV, I haven't watched one in 9 years - but this thread is about the article, so whatever's been happening on TV is irrelevant.

Well that's rich considering how Wikileaks was treated during the elections. (Although I agree with your assertion)

[Tijuana]

The smart people in the room are the ones who see any article for what it is, without any prejudice based on who published it. I don't know anything about the TV, I haven't watched one in 9 years - but this thread is about the article, so whatever's been happening on TV is irrelevant.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the outrage is now 48 hours of around the clock coverage of a story that is known to be "Russian disinformation"/fake news. CNN gets played on TV all over the world, often with no sound turned on. So, for two days, their headline has basically been Trump hires hookers to pee on beds. This is what passes for journalism now I guess. What a shame.


If you are going to read print news, why on earth would anyone do that at a TV news website? Why not read actual journalists???

[May90]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the outrage is now 48 hours of around the clock coverage of a story that is known to be "Russian disinformation"/fake news. CNN gets played on TV all over the world, often with no sound turned on. So, for two days, their headline has basically been Trump hires hookers to pee on beds. This is what passes for journalism now I guess. What a shame.


If you are going to read print news, why on earth would anyone do that at a TV news website? Why not read actual journalists???

TV has always been a poor interface for news delivering. Also, CNN channel on TV and CNN website/newspaper are managed by completely different people, so you can't really bash them both because of something one of them does wrong.

Again, I have no idea what's happening on TV, and last time I watched CNN channel was around 11 years ago. As far as printed news go, there isn't any fundamental difference between CNN and some exclusively-print news agency, like NYT.

[Tijuana]

TV has always been a poor interface for news delivering. Also, CNN channel on TV and CNN website/newspaper are managed by completely different people, so you can't really bash them both because of something one of them does wrong.

Again, I have no idea what's happening on TV, and last time I watched CNN channel was around 11 years ago. As far as printed news go, there isn't any fundamental difference between CNN and some exclusively-print news agency, like NYT.

I never did bash them both. I bashed CNN. CNN is a TV station, first and foremost. The fact that you don't know what is on TV, in no way lessens the crimes against journalism that have been going on for two days now over at CNN.

Also, I agree that CNN print news is on par with the NYT, unfit for bird cages and fish wrap.