Re: What would it take?
 

So here’s the headline:

[b]Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign[/b]

The opening sentence:

High-level advisers close to then-presidential nominee Donald Trump were in constant communication during the campaign with Russians known to US intelligence, multiple current and former intelligence, law enforcement and administration officials tell CNN.

The closing sentences:

One concern was whether Trump associates were coordinating with Russian intelligence operatives over the release of damaging information about the Hillary Clinton campaign. "If that were the case, then that would escalate things," one official briefed on the investigation said.

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/donald-trump-aides-russians-campaign/index.html]Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

So was it "fake news?" No. Not in the sense that the article contained incorrect factual statements. Rather, every fact included is verifiable and the adjectives describing those facts relatively unobjectionable - even if some are reasonably disputable. Further, the article also included Manafort's denial of any contact with Russian officials or "suspected" Russian operatives and a lengthy explanation of the same. So, on its face, it certainly would appear factually correct and fair.

However, deception can be by either commission or omission.

- As to Manafort's denial, never once does the article indicate that Manafort - or anyone for that matter - may not know when they were talking to a [I]suspected[/I] Russian operative. In fact, the article never even identifies the "Russian nationals known to US intelligence" as individuals who are suspects that [I]may not even be working for the Russian government[/I]. Rather, the only indication that these communications were with "suspected" operatives comes from a quoted Manafort statement. The article's author NEVER adopts, [I]through his own words[/I], this characterization.

- As for the rest, I think the bracketed facts speak for themselves.

Again, to me, the headline chosen, the facts stated, the facts omitted, and the opening and closing sentences are presented in a manner that insinuates a malicious intent on behalf of the staffers while doing so in a manner that is intended to create the impression of a fair representation of the facts. IMHO - a deception of the most invidious nature.

[Oh and by the way, CNN and leakers of classified info ... Thanks! Any [I]actual[/I] Russian operatives who spoke with Page, Manafort or Stone during the campaign are now on notice that their cover may have been blown. Pretty sure, Russian counter-intelligence is going to be able to identify those individuals with relative ease since the article - and those who leaked the info - have identified the specific recipients and a relatively tight time frame for the relevant conversations. Great job!]

Re: What would it take?
 

JR ,just a question but has there been a study done on FOX news,I mean something similar to this one?

Re: What would it take?
 

This is the shit that has to stop.After watching the actual press conference and seeing and hearing for myself, he does this shit!

[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-donald-trump-praises-himself-141957157.html[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=Giantone;1165365]JR ,just a question but has there been a study done on FOX news,I mean something similar to this one?[/QUOTE]
Well, that's my point. I have no doubt that msnbc and Fox do this. Until election night, I thought CNN was better about their stories. Since then, they are have been just as misleading as those two.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1165389]Well, that's my point. I have no doubt that msnbc and Fox do this. Until election night, I thought CNN was better about their stories. Since then, they are have been just as misleading as those two.[/quote]

This is a great read .It's response's from Journalist on Trumps attacks.


[url=http://www.poynter.org/2017/journalists-react-to-being-called-the-enemy-of-the-american-people/449456/]Journalists react to being called ‘the enemy of the American people’ – Poynter[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

"The media did not make Donald Trump, and they can't destroy him," Limbaugh said. "But the media thinks -- and when I say media, let me define: ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times, that cadre -- they have a formula, they have a blueprint for destroying Republican political officials they don't like. It's not going to work on Trump. He doesn't fit that mold. They're trying to everyday. It's kind of comical to watch."

Re: What would it take?
 

To me this should be sent to Trump and all his advisors.

[url]https://jrbenjamin.com/2015/01/25/teddy-roosevelt-how-to-criticize-the-president/[/url]

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”

Re: What would it take?
 

[url=http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/320248-mccain-on-attacking-media-thats-how-dictators-get-started]McCain on shutting down press: That's how dictators get started | TheHill[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

Since we are talkin bout the corrupt media, any thoughts on bill Maher?

It's entertaining to watch the libs kill him. Always like maher because he understands freedom of speech means freedom of speech...not the pc, liberal censorship going on in this country today. Another reason why trump won.

Re: What would it take?
 

I think it's important to expose idiots like Yiannopoulos

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1165398][url=http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/320248-mccain-on-attacking-media-thats-how-dictators-get-started]McCain on shutting down press: That's how dictators get started | TheHill[/url][/quote]

Yup. Of course it is. So ... has Trump moved to block CNN from printing whatever they want? Is the MSNBC website all of sudden blocked? Have any reporters been imprisoned for printing anti-Trump articles?

Nope. The press is free to print whatever the hell it wants. We, both from the left and the right, are free to call them out on their bias, misrepresentations or whatever else.

Lefties have been mocking Fox News for years highlighting their bias, pointing out were they deceive through omission, etc. Sucks when what goes around comes around.

Freedom of the press is imperative. So is holding them to the standards they claim to be upholding.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1163297]The recount thread has become less about the recounts since it's over. So how about a new question. For those who are anti-Trump, what would it take - or what would you need to see in the first 180 days to bring you to his side. Obviously some parts of his agenda will never be supported by democrats, but what could happen that would make his presidency more palatable then the last 4 years of Bush.

For the Trumpeters, what would it take, or what could he do in the 180 days to shake your faith, and specifically, what legislation could be passed or not passed that would make you buy in to the Trump's a charlatan argument.

My big 3 -
1) failing to repeal the Affordable Care Act - while a replace option at some point could be added, the repeal is the higher priority to me. For my family, I would be content going back to the health care of the past, at least I could afford that. (selfish bastard that I am that I want to be able to cover myself and my kids first).

2) making a unjustified deal with Russia. I don't think we should be Ukraine's protector, but we definitely should be committed to NATO. Any deal that trades any NATO member's security for Russian cooperation would break my faith in him.

3) a lack of efforts that specifically target improving the life of urban US cities. Both parties ignore the real needs of these populations, the democrats take them for granted, and republicans see them as unswerving opponents. I want to see Trump move beyond that dilemna.

the least important thing that Trump promised - the wall. If it's built fine, if not, make immigration attainable, deport criminals here illegally and call it a job well done.

What are your big 3?[/quote]

Nothing is going to change for the better, but it will get worse. Up til the week before the election I was going to abstain from voting. The American voter was faced with a no win scenario. Two narcissistic power hungry psychos isn't much of a choice. People voted for Trump because he was the only one who campaigned with promise change, no war, no globalism, selling out the blue collar industrial workers of this nation, and cutting spending and debt. Hilary was just Obama 2.0 which was just Bush 2.0 in terms of war and debt(the two big issues that really matter). Most people didn't like either candidate they did vote for. It was change and not w anting a thoroughly corrupt politician in office vs those who didn't want a shoot from the hip egoist that was un PC in office. Trump won and I ended up voting for him, but I wish I had simply abstained like I originally was going to. The guy wants to have another détente with Russia, but we are shipping by train a ton of armor headed toward Ukraine as we speak. Sanctions are still going on. IN terms of Syria, we are actually considering boots on the ground there. Wow, what an incredibly stupid idea!!!!!!! Just like the other ME adventures we are in now. He wanted to drain the swamp, but his entire cabinet is filled with Goldman Sachs cronies and Israel First whack jobs. All this economic nationalism sounds good, but if he raises tariffs on things the ones getting screwed will be the American consumer, who is facing creeping inflation and the increased loss of decent paying jobs. It seems the neocon deep state types have already defeated his presidency, so this whole issue is moot. Americans need to wake up that our electoral system is rigged and any candidate from both parties has always been thoroughly vetted by the deep state elites. I don't expect anything from Trump that we haven't already seen from the past two shmucks in office, except that maybe if we do corner the Russian Bear anymore, there might be some mushroom clouds in our future. Trump is a one term president, as Hilary would have been if she was elected. Things are not going to get better. With the advent of this election, we have a new term coined and that is "fake news". Just about all media outlets are biased one way or another. Nobody trusts anyone anymore, and the distrust and paranoia is running fever pitch. If Trump would have stayed on point, things wouldn't look so bleak, but he seems to be in damage control mode so much that he comes off as incompetent and in over his head. As a result of the Flynn debacle, his hands are now tied in trying to thaw relations with Russia. Do we really need to have another Cold War, when we need to spend up to $9 trillion to modernize American infrastructure? How about our education system, health care, etc? Oh no, we need to create more bogeymen to justify making some assholes in the MIC rich. Sorry about the rant, but thus far Trump has been a major disappointment!! It looks like he had no clue as to what he was getting himself into.

Re: What would it take?
 

Also, why do we need NATO? The Russian threat is garbage, but our threat against Russia in Ukraine is not. Do you think Russia wants to have ICBMs pointed toward her just south of the border if Ukraine joins NATO? That is why they act the way they do in Ukraine. What would be our response if say they tried to put ICBMs in Cuba again? We would go ape shit. Those people in E Ukraine knew how bad things were in Kiev and that their jobs and industries would have been sold to Western internationals and scrapped, leaving them even more economically depressed than they already were. The fact that they were deemed second class citizens didn't help either.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Giantone;1165397]To me this should be sent to Trump and all his advisors.

[url]https://jrbenjamin.com/2015/01/25/teddy-roosevelt-how-to-criticize-the-president/[/url]

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”[/quote]

The leftist neocon press doesn't give a shit Giant about ethics! Case in point, what we witnessed with the mass protests after Trump was elected. Many conservatives were not happy with President Obama, but didn't go around rioting after he was elected twice. The press seemed to get off on this. Another example of the press being rather dubious at best with the truth is with Ukraine and reporting Russian military formations were in E Ukraine without any proof. Nice way to gin up support for a future war based on lies huh? Oh yeah, W already did that using his lackey Colin Powell at the UN. Fox News sure had a great run with that. Now the lies about Iran. Why do you think Trump gets away with this fake news stuff? Because a majority of Americans don't trust them. And why should they, the bias no matter where you go is rather heavy. Fox is the GOP news channel, while the rest our liberal. That is why Fox is #1. Still biased though.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1165401]I think it's important to expose idiots like Yiannopoulos[/quote]

The guy seems like a gossiping sleaze bag...I had no idea who he was until Berkeley was protesting him. I'm a little surprised people are so wound up about this guy.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1165399]Since we are talkin bout the corrupt media, any thoughts on bill Maher?

It's entertaining to watch the libs kill him. Always like maher because he understands freedom of speech means freedom of speech...not the pc, liberal censorship going on in this country today. Another reason why trump won.[/quote]


[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXKIk7b0Owc[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=FlyerSkin;1165406]The leftist neocon press doesn't give a shit Giant about ethics! Case in point, what we witnessed with the mass protests after Trump was elected. Many conservatives were not happy with President Obama, but didn't go around rioting after he was elected twice. The press seemed to get off on this. Another example of the press being rather dubious at best with the truth is with Ukraine and reporting Russian military formations were in E Ukraine without any proof. Nice way to gin up support for a future war based on lies huh? Oh yeah, W already did that using his lackey Colin Powell at the UN. Fox News sure had a great run with that. Now the lies about Iran. Why do you think Trump gets away with this fake news stuff? Because a majority of Americans don't trust them. And why should they, the bias no matter where you go is rather heavy. Fox is the GOP news channel, while the rest our liberal. That is why Fox is #1. Still biased though.[/quote]


Trump is a moron plain and simple to put that on the press is absurd .FOX has had it with Trump also.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POQNyTPMi_w[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1165401]I think it's important to expose idiots like Yiannopoulos[/quote]

Expose him, fine. UC Berkley shut him down and "anti"-fascists vandalized the campus rather than let him speak ... are they that afraid of his words?


Where is the indignation over freedom of speech from the left? Where was the call to let him speak and then refute his positions?

Oh right ... that only applies to speech we like.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=FlyerSkin;1165406]The leftist neocon press doesn't give a shit Giant about ethics! Case in point, what we witnessed with the mass protests after Trump was elected. Many conservatives were not happy with President Obama, but didn't go around rioting after he was elected twice. The press seemed to get off on this. Another example of the press being rather dubious at best with the truth is with Ukraine and reporting Russian military formations were in E Ukraine without any proof. Nice way to gin up support for a future war based on lies huh? Oh yeah, W already did that using his lackey Colin Powell at the UN. Fox News sure had a great run with that. Now the lies about Iran. Why do you think Trump gets away with this fake news stuff? Because a majority of Americans don't trust them. And why should they, the bias no matter where you go is rather heavy. Fox is the GOP news channel, while the rest our liberal. That is why Fox is #1. Still biased though.[/quote]


Not as you say"The leftist neocon press doesn't give a shit " ,the quote is from Teddy Roosevelt 26th President.

Re: What would it take?
 

No one, not even Trump, is saying that you can't criticize the president. In fact, contextual criticism is always a good thing. But falsehoods, distortions, and vitriolic bias from either side should always be pointed out as such. CNN cloaking itself in the 1st amendment is a deflection from their ever increasing bias, and an attempt to shut down the legitimate questioning of bias reporters.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1165434]Expose him, fine. UC Berkley shut him down and "anti"-fascists vandalized the campus rather than let him speak ... are they that afraid of his words?


Where is the indignation over freedom of speech from the left? Where was the call to let him speak and then refute his positions?

Oh right ... that only applies to speech we like.[/quote]

Bill Maher often blasts liberals for this very thing. Unfortunately he seems to the lone voice from the left on this.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1165451]Bill Maher often blasts liberals for this very thing. Unfortunately he seems to the lone voice from the left on this.[/quote]

Maher does call it like it is more than most.

Well documented, his biggest issues for the last 4-5 years: liberal islam apologists and the pussy pc liberal agenda of the left. Maher arguements on both are the strongest in the country...look it up on YouTube, he is dead on.

Re: What would it take?
 

You get 200 snowflakes together and you call it a rally and/protest. Who cares? Such small crowds...#mediafail

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1165443]No one, not even Trump, is saying that you can't criticize the president. In fact, contextual criticism is always a good thing. But falsehoods, distortions, and vitriolic bias from either side should always be pointed out as such. CNN cloaking itself in the 1st amendment is a deflection from their ever increasing bias, and an attempt to shut down the legitimate questioning of bias reporters.[/quote]

Yes he is,and when it's done he acts like a petulant little child ,to call the press the enemy is attacking it.Trump deserves all the shit coming his way .Some of you might not remember it but yes the press did make Donald Trump,for years in the 70's and 80's he was on page 6 of the NY.Post or the front cover of the Daily News doing one outrageous thing or another so ,yes, the press did make Trump.


[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/business/trump-calls-the-news-media-the-enemy-of-the-people.html?_r=0[/url]



I find it amazing the bitching going on about CNN yet allowing FOX to get away with anything.Hypocritical .

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1165463]You get 200 snowflakes together and you call it a rally and/protest. Who cares? Such small crowds...#mediafail[/quote]


So the President of the United States of America holds a "pep" rally and only allows 9,000 thousand Americans to attend by giving away tickets,wonder how he knew exactly how and to whom to give those tickets too???Many great American leaders have given speeches but do it where they can get it to "all" Americans .Again what is Trump afraid of?

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1165452]Maher does call it like it is more than most.

Well documented, his biggest issues for the last 4-5 years: liberal islam apologists and the pussy pc liberal agenda of the left. Maher arguements on both are the strongest in the country...look it up on YouTube, he is dead on.[/quote]

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVTK_XffAvk[/url][CENTER][/CENTER]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Giantone;1165469]Yes he is,and when it's done he acts like a petulant little child ,to call the press the enemy is attacking it.Trump deserves all the shit coming his way .Some of you might not remember it but yes the press did make Donald Trump,for years in the 70's and 80's he was on page 6 of the NY.Post or the front cover of the Daily News doing one outrageous thing or another so ,yes, the press did make Trump.


[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/business/trump-calls-the-news-media-the-enemy-of-the-people.html?_r=0[/url]



I find it amazing the bitching going on about CNN yet allowing FOX to get away with anything.Hypocritical .[/quote]
I find it amazing that you can't grasp the difference. Nobody is saying Fox presents an unbiased point of view. In fact everybody is agreeing that Fox has a bias to the right, and when reading stories there you need to be aware that you are getting information that has a conservative bias.
CNN [B][I][U]USED to[/U][/I][/B] be known for it's objective reporting. Yes it had a soft bias, but they did strive to report objectively. The point being made now is that yeah they aren't an objective source any more, but they scream press infringement when they are treated like any other biased outlet.

Re: What would it take?
 

No need to worry about Milo anymore. He's pretty much done for. Can't defend pedophilia and expect anything good to come from it.

[url=http://www.npr.org/2017/02/20/516332666/after-underage-sex-comments-milo-yiannopoulos-loses-cpac-invite-book-deal?live=1&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170220]Milo Yiannopoulos Loses CPAC Invite, Simon & Schuster Book Deal After Underage Sex Comments : The Two-Way : NPR[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Giantone;1165471]So the President of the United States of America holds a "pep" rally and only allows 9,000 thousand Americans to attend by giving away tickets,wonder how he knew exactly how and to whom to give those tickets too???Many great American leaders have given speeches but do it where they can get it to "all" Americans .Again what is Trump afraid of?[/quote]

He did get it to all Americans, it was live on TV.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1165507]No need to worry about Milo anymore. He's pretty much done for. Can't defend pedophilia and expect anything good to come from it.

[url=http://www.npr.org/2017/02/20/516332666/after-underage-sex-comments-milo-yiannopoulos-loses-cpac-invite-book-deal?live=1&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170220]Milo Yiannopoulos Loses CPAC Invite, Simon & Schuster Book Deal After Underage Sex Comments : The Two-Way : NPR[/url][/quote]

[url=http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/21/media/milo-yiannopoulos-downfall/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom...I]Milo Yiannopoulos in uncharted territory: the hot seat - Feb. 21, 2017[/url] personally like the headline: Downfall of a troll

Re: What would it take?
 

Man this Trump stock market so far: Big League

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1165507]No need to worry about Milo anymore. He's pretty much done for. Can't defend pedophilia and expect anything good to come from it.

[url=http://www.npr.org/2017/02/20/516332666/after-underage-sex-comments-milo-yiannopoulos-loses-cpac-invite-book-deal?live=1&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170220]Milo Yiannopoulos Loses CPAC Invite, Simon & Schuster Book Deal After Underage Sex Comments : The Two-Way : NPR[/url][/quote]

Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart...15 mins officially over

Re: What would it take?
 

After seeing him on Maher and reading up on him a bit, troll is the perfect word for him.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1165519]Man this Trump stock market so far: Big League[/QUOTE]


Crazy how this is happening considering the 28% unemployment rate, or is it 30? Or 35? Hell it might even be as high as 42. At least that's what I've heard.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1165523]Crazy how this is happening considering the 28% unemployment rate, or is it 30? Or 35? Hell it might even be as high as 42. At least that's what I've heard.[/quote]

Are you talking about Republican unemployment? These are just things people tell me, I have no clue if they are true or not.

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=mooby;1165540]Are you talking about Republican unemployment? These are just things people tell me, I have no clue if they are true or not.[/QUOTE]


That fake news though...

Re: What would it take?
 

Here's something I'm noticing all over my social media feed lately:

Fox News is slanted, but CNN is fake news.

Sure, a lot of the more left media outlets have brought this on themselves, but now they are totally discredited to the point people are acting like the news isn't real. Is it super slanted? Absolutely, but to pretend it isn't real is a little scary. I've tried the past couple weeks to not pay attention to the government because it was really pissing me off on a daily basis.

I know there are right/left slanted organizations out there, but suddenly to pretend if left-leaning news is fake is a dangerous precedent. Say it's biased, I'm fine with that, but be educated and understand that most news isn't going to be all the things you want to hear. I think Fox News (and CNN recently) are both ridiculous, but for the most part, they're not "fake", just heavily biased.

Re: What would it take?
 

Straight from big hands:

"The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!"

love it when we get a sad

Re: What would it take?
 

The exclamation points are key. This is the shit that kills me.

I'm like, WHO the fuck are you talking to? You're not running anymore, just be the fucking president.

Awful! :D