Democrats are falling for fake news about Russia

[Garnier Fructis]

Calls that were denied! While Trump actually agreed to special prosecutor. Already more transparent then Democrats.

Trump found out about the special counsel after Rosenstein decided to appoint one, and then had a meeting with advisors to decide on how to respond. And then he spent the next day bitching on Twitter about it. Oh, and White House lawyers are looking into whether or not they can invoke a conflict of interest rule to weaken Mueller.

Doesn't sound like a whole lot of agreement to me. He 'agreed to it' the same way that people agree to things they can't control.

[Shalcker]

Trump found out about the special counsel after Rosenstein decided to appoint one, and then had a meeting with advisors to decide on how to respond. And then he spent the next day bitching on Twitter about it. Oh, and White House lawyers are looking into whether or not they can invoke a conflict of interest rule to weaken Mueller.

Well, at worst they'll be exactly the same as Democrat's handling of Clinton.

[Deleted]

People think they can make of this full on artificial Russia thing a panacea for their political system. It's not going to be that way. Eventually Russia will be out of fashion and you'll find yourself a few years older, and with the same idiotic political system in place. The reason being, you spent years talking about putin instead of discussing a political system that allows people like trump and Clinton to run all the way to the end.
Wake the fuck up americans.

[TZucchini]

Why are we making broad generalized statements about "Democrats", when it's probably a handful of nutjobs who actually believe these conspiracy theories? Honestly I haven't even heard of any of these.

[Daelak]

Sorry, I don't even know who that is.

It's called reaching, conservatives are known for that. Remember the "both sides are the samesesz!" or "they are both equally corrupt!"?

[Felya]

No difference again then. Benghazi had lots of "reasonable suspicions". Reasonable from Republican side, obviously. Most Democrats always called it witch hunt (just like Trump calls his investigations witch hunt now).

What reasonable suspicion? Even Romney screwed up during the debates, because the reasonable suspicion was the difference between 'an act of terrorism' and 'a terrorist act'. This is what you call no difference... Obama didn't fire anyone investing it. Obama never went on twitter to bitch his he was wiretapped by Bush. Obama didn't blame Bush administration from going after him.

Yeah, so did Clinton and her associates. They even asked for immunity, just like Flynn! Clearly they thought they were guilty! And they even found out about her email server in the process! Years after Clinton stopped being Secretary of State.

No persecution in the end.

Yes, and despite all that, Obama and Hillary did not fire the FBI director investigating it. The people who asked for immunity, were not fired by Obama for lying to FBI and the VP.

Yeah, imagine that. After a near dozen Benghazi investigations nothing was found. Maybe Trump should have done the same and let Comey do his job, instead of firing him for it. Based on what you are saying, if you believe both issues are the same, then Trump should have acted the same and let the investigation play out, so there is no persecution.

Of course you can say that. But saying "Republicans were wrong in their witch hunts, our witch hunts are just and true" while having no facts at hand (just lots of "possibilities") means either you're blind to your partisan bias or you embrace it and see it as good thing.

Uhm... they had hearings and investigations that actually had conclusions. You are just highlighting your own problem... Me saying that the witch hunts were not true and a waste are 100% objectively true based on their results. Not partisan bullshit, but the outcome of investigations that did happen. This is where hiding the fact that you recognize why Trump shouldn't oppose an investigation, how this is different and how it contributes to over all suspicion should be obvious... but... for what ever reason, you can point to investigations as necessary, while defending that Trump's suspicion is unjust... even though he is actively fighting against an investigation...

I don't see it as a good thing. Not to the point of embracing every source that fits your preferred narrative, no matter how far fetched - which is Vox article is about.

No shit you don't. Your issue is public opinion, not the actions of the president. Unlike you, I don't need to pretend a small majority represents the whole. I can just go based on exactly what is happening...

Notice how you ignored, even though you challenged me to quote you, where you said that media tells you these are possibilities. You know, far different than Trump saying he had Obama's real birth certificate, but never actually presented it. Trump wasn't saying it was a possibility, he was saying he had it. But, your problem is random people acting the same as the president of US... nice...

He aren't going to stop. And you aren't going to stop him by heated forum postings. Nor are you going to convince anyone in "Trump camp" that way - or "Independents", for that matter, who are constantly attacked as being pro-Trump here if they don't agree with every "latest outrage".

That's fan fantastic! Now, what's your issue with the OP again?

People are just as much of the problem as Trump.

That's is fucked up. An avarage person has no power or ability of the president. If the president is saying someone is a crook, it's far different than me doing it. The above in completely removed from reality...

Yeah, yeah, and Hillary's actions wouldn't be an issue if she wouldn't BleachBit server after being subpoenaed. Yet she did. Clearly she thought she was guilty to do that, right? All suspicions were reasonable, right?

...but in the end, nothing happened.

What do you mean nothing happened? What planet are you from that you missed all of the hearings and the last minute reveal from Comey? This isn't reality... we had investigations into Hillary's email. You are complaining about their result, while complaining that it's the same as no investigation into Trump.

As far as i see media would just switch to other things. Like him actually doing what he promised on campaign trail. You know, Wall, taxes, "muslim ban" and so on, there are lots of "dissonance with Democrat's proclaimed values" as far as Trump is concerned to keep going. Enough for years of manufactured outrage. Neither side seems to be in mood to reconcile, and Republicans actually hold majority so they have no incentive to have Democrats on board...

All of those got press as they were happening. You didn't see all the shit about both travel bans? His tax cuts? His healthcare plan, twice? Are you living in a Russian news only bunker? Oh, that's right... you are...

And as far as i understand "blind trust" is just a custom, not an actual law. Trump only seems to care about being legal, not about customs. See his lawyers looking at impeachment possibilities to see what he can legally do to hinder them.

Yes, and the reason the custom exists is specifically due to transparency and showing no conflicts of interest. You are the one complaining about suspicion, which doesn't require law binding, as you are saying Trump only cares about.

How exactly is that media's fault? Trump refuses to do customary things that all presidents do to show transparency and lack of conflict of interest, because those are not defined by law. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. This is Trump's fault, not media... you are even explaining why, but don't see it... it's kind of weird...

I don't see how anything would be different if he did, so he has absolutely no incentives to do what you want.

Yep, that's my opinion and i stick by it. This scrutiny is in fact as useful as Clinton's investigations - that is, only seems useful to those with partisan blinders.

You wouldn't see how anything would be different. Hell, you explained exactly how or why it would be different without realizing it. For someone who likes to bitch about partisans, you seem to have a massive blind spot around Trump. So, yeah, I agree... you wouldn't see it... not in your current mind set at least...

He did offer concessions - like firing Flynn when he lied about his "talks with Kislyak". Witch hunts only intensified.

No, Comey was fired, Flynn resigned. Yeah, they intensified. He let the guy who was busted for lying resign, but the guy in charge of the department who busted him for lying, was fired. Again, huge blind spot...

Oh really? I can easily see Republicans going "those witch hunts are ridiculous and those leaks are treasonous and damaging to our world standing! Lock them up!!!" ...in fact, some did say that.

Again, US is not Russia. Them trying to jail journalists "for good measure" would require a constitutional amendment. See Trump campaigning on liable laws. Yes, they do that in Russia to Putin opposition, but cannot do that in US yet. Keep trying though... you guys are doing better than I thought you could... not even sarcasm...

Nope, it doesn't. Because there was lots of stuff said about him that is obviously not true. Like "golden shower tapes".

No, you saying he would jail journalists, makes everything said about Trump true... even golden showers... give it 2 min of thought... maybe an hour...

Again you're going with generalizations. This thread is about people CAPSING and falling for fakes, not about you. We can have more reasonable discussion with you.

Hopefully.

Uhm... asking you to reply to me, when you are complaining about "CAPS" is not generalizing... like, the opposite... damn, at least bats have sonar...

[Allybeboba]

Of course there's going to be fake news over this.

Here's the bad part for you, though. The news we've been seeing on this forum? Not fake news. Because all the news that's been posted have been from reputable journalists, and not all the trash journalism that Vox had to sift through to dig up these fake stories.

So sure, there's fake news. If you were trying to give the impression that the daily stream of damning reports on Trump are fake, though? No dice.

Much of the information on this site is sensationalized news. With cherry picked quotes and pieces. Very few articles will give you ALL of the information.
People still run with it though thinking they have all the information they need.

[Daelak]

Much of the information on this site is sensationalized news. With cherry picked quotes and pieces. Very few articles will give you ALL of the information.
People still run with it though thinking they have all the information they need.

Which site? Show me evidence of cherry picking and bias.

[Allybeboba]

Which site? Show me evidence of cherry picking and bias.

Pick practically any thread on this site in Gen-OT my friend. I and sure you can find one.

[Daelak]

Pick practically any thread on this site in Gen-OT my friend. I and sure you can find one.

Show me one. Show me a sensationalized, biased, fake news from NYTimes, CNN, etc.

[satimy]

Here's a serious quest how do you fix fake news

[Heladys]

Here's a serious quest how do you fix fake news

You shutter FoxNews, Breitbart, and Alex Jones, for starters.

- - - Updated - - -

Pick practically any thread on this site in Gen-OT my friend. I and sure you can find one.

Shortcut: look at Allybeboba's post history

[Molis]

Have not heard a single one of these stories.
None of these are in the mainstream reputable media.

Thanks for claiming "fake news" as "fake news"

[satimy]

You shutter FoxNews, Breitbart, and Alex Jones, for starters.

- - - Updated - - -



Shortcut: look at Allybeboba's post history

How do you get around first amendment issues? How do you determine what is fake news? Who gets to determine that?

[TZucchini]

Here's a serious quest how do you fix fake news

Education, of course.

[Kathandira]

We have a saying at work. If all issues are high priority, then no issues are high priority.

This applies to these fake news claims.

If all news is fake news, then no news is fake news.

I'd like to see a list of news sources that have not been claimed to be fake news. I feel each person will have overlap, and there will likely be no sources which are left without accusation of being fake.

[Garnier Fructis]

Much of the information on this site is sensationalized news. With cherry picked quotes and pieces. Very few articles will give you ALL of the information.
People still run with it though thinking they have all the information they need.

Got an example? And none of that runaround shit that you've been giving to other posters, please.

[Shalcker]

Because Trump actually is sharing information with the enemy.

Does "I'll be more flexible after elections" rings a bell?

Trump actually DOES refuse to share his taxes, despite all the promises.

So did Obama for long form birth certificate! Until his second term, no less!

I'm sure Trump will share his taxes on second term too.

Unlike pizza gate and a birth certificate this are serious things with real investigations.

Investigations are real, how serious they are is quite debatable. Public has no facts to tell.

No, they weren't.

Yes they were.

[Orbitus]

Yep, it's easy to see what we'll see in the next 4 years because this play have been played before for years and was met with approval, so now it's time for "Democrat edition" of same thing, met with similar approval in different audience.

In this analogy "birth certificate" is "taxes" (so no special persecutor), while Clinton is "Russian contacts". And there certainly were multiple calls for special prosecutors for her.

Calls that were denied! While Trump actually agreed to special prosecutor. Already more transparent then Democrats.


Versions of what got Flynn fired changed all the time. Obviously you've chosen the one you like more.

From outside you look exactly the same to me.

Except Trump isn't more transparent than Democrats. There are a lot of things that Obama instituted that Trump has basically shut down. Like the White House sign in sheet to see who is coming and going to see the president.

And if you think Democrats and Republicans are the same, you aren't getting your news from sources that are reputable. Especially when you use fucking BREITBART as a link for people calling for a "special prosecutor", when literally no one in congress was calling for it for Clinton. The Republicans tried 8 or so fucking investigations into Benghazi and didn't find anything. We have 3 going on at the same time from 3 different departments. FBI, House, and Senate.

- - - Updated - - -

Does "I'll be more flexible after elections" rings a bell?

So did Obama for long form birth certificate! Until his second term, no less!

I'm sure Trump will share his taxes on second term too.

Investigations are real, how serious they are is quite debatable. Public has no facts to tell.

Yes they were.

That wasn't sharing classified information that wasn't ours to give. That was Obama trying to help them out with information that we could give them. But then Putin was a fucking moron and invaded Crimea. That makes Russia an enemy and they got their sanctions for it.

Obama released his birth certificate in 2011, 2 1/2 years into his presidency. And Trump continued with the birther conspiracy until he got the Republican nomination. Even then, his dumbass followers are STILL trying to say that Obama wasn't American, and that they still want him to investigate it.

There is actually cause for impeachment with Trump. When he said that he fired Comey to "ease the tensions on the Russia investigations", that is obstruction of justice. That was the first thing that Nixon was going to be impeached for before he resigned.