Trump/Russia Dossier

grapidianclaret · Post by **grapidianclaret** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:09 pm

Clarinetclaret wrote:Oh get over yourself, whoever is elected over there the world still goes on. This obsession with the American president by some of you is pathetic. We cant do anything about it so why do you care? Does American policy extend to Lancaster now?
If we had a vote fair enough, but we dont so for pitys sake get a bloody grip. Dont wet your panties over him.

Yeah, the Iraq war would have happened anyway,even if Gore would have been elected.

grapidianclaret · Post by **grapidianclaret** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:13 pm

bluelabrador16 wrote:Evidence please.

Putin spoke

Corky · Post by **Corky** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:24 pm

Hi Lucs86, I have just seen your response to my earlier post to IP and I have suddenly remembered why I don't normally get involved in this sort of post.

Worryingly 2 people have actually liked your comments. I wonder if they were being ironic.

I won't bother telling you what I was trying to project as there is clearly little point.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:26 pm

I seriously hope Buzzfeed burn over this scandal.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:41 pm

That press conference was nuts.

He's definitely entertaining if nothing else

grapidianclaret · Post by **grapidianclaret** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:42 pm

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I seriously hope Buzzfeed burn over this scandal.

If they do, we can hire some Russian prostitutes to put them out.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:44 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:That press conference was nuts.

He's definitely entertaining if nothing else

Not going to lie I absolutely loved it.

Clarinetclaret · Post by **Clarinetclaret** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:10 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:If you genuinely believe that mate, then crack on.

Pardon me for having an interest that you don't have.

So lets get this straight, you go round in everyday life worrying about who runs America and what they will do next, neither of which you can affect in any way as you don't live there and have a vote. Give your head a wobble.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:37 pm

No, I think about the effects that the most powerful country in the world and one of our allies could have on us.

And I don't worry about it, I have an interest in that kind of thing.

You don't have to read it you know!

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:42 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Ukraine?

Syria?

Doping at Sochi?

Russian Hooligans in France...

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:25 pm

I genuinely find it astonishing that there are so many posters on here who will gladly tie themselves in knots to defend a man who is, whatever your political views are, indefensible.

There is no way you can honestly think that Donald Trump being President of the United States is a good idea.

I notice that some of these Trump defenders are the same posters who were the most vociferous when it came to arguing the 'Leave' case in the EU referendum.

Which explains a lot.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:33 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:There is no way you can honestly think that Donald Trump being President of the United States is a good idea.

I notice that some of these Trump defenders are the same posters who were the most vociferous when it came to arguing the 'Leave' case in the EU referendum.

Which explains a lot.

The two are probably connected - Trump is the most pro-UK President of the US we've had since Ronald Reagan. Regardless of Trump's stupidity, muddled politics and his undoubted crassness his presidency is a good opportunity for the UK.

The swift "front of the queue" trade negotiations that have already begun are testament to this.

The same people who are swept up in the domestic politics of a foreign country are the same posters who were the most vociferous when it came to arguing the 'Remain' case in the EU referendum.

Which explains a lot.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:42 pm

Rowls wrote:The two are probably connected - Trump is the most pro-UK President of the US we've had since Ronald Reagan. Regardless of Trump's stupidity, muddled politics and his undoubted crassness his presidency is a good opportunity for the UK.

The swift "front of the queue" trade negotiations that have already begun are testament to this.

The same people who are swept up in the domestic politics of a foreign country are the same posters who were the most vociferous when it came to arguing the 'Remain' case in the EU referendum.

Which explains a lot.

So we should be happy that we've got a POTUS who could be a disaster on a global scale, as long as we're at the front of the queue for some questionable trade deal in the future? Wouldn't you say that's more than a little bit short sighted, Rowls?

As for being swept up in the domestic politics of a foreign country, this isn't the prime minister of Portugal we're talking about. Trump arguably has the biggest and most important role in global politics, so surely you can understand peoples concerns regarding his suitability?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:52 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:So we should be happy that we've got a POTUS who could be a disaster on a global scale, as long as we're at the front of the queue for some questionable trade deal in the future? Wouldn't you say that's more than a little bit short sighted, Rowls?

As for being swept up in the domestic politics of a foreign country, this isn't the prime minister of Portugal we're talking about. Trump arguably has the biggest and most important role in global politics, so surely you can understand peoples concerns regarding his suitability?

1. I don't see any forthcoming disasters "on a global scale". I actually see future relations between the US and Russia being better than they've been for years.
Trump would have to be abysmal to achieve as little as Obama did internationally. The world is certainly no safer now than when Obama took office.
There is nothing "questionable" about trade deals - they provide livelihoods, jobs and prosperity. I DO put British interests first, yes and I'm proud to do so. You can call that "short-sighted" but I call it patriotic. As for the unspecified "disaster" you appear to be predicting, I think you're being a drama queen. If you could be more specific about the oncoming apocalypse perhaps we could discuss it in more detail?

2. You're worrying about something you cannot change and will have very little impact on your life. Yes, you should stop worrying about it. He's no less stable, mad or dangerous than many who have held equally important positions such as Stalin, Kennedy, Nixon or Krushev.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:58 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Rumour has it Trump is partial to a bit of water sports.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/polit ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

First, let's address the disinformation that one or two will uncritically parrot. No, this didn't come from a 4chan troll. Someone on 4chan tried to claim that they tricked Buzzfeed into reporting this by giving them this in late October/early-November. That's untrue. The FBI have had this since August. If there are only two reporters in the in America with unimpeachable credentials Carl Bernstein is one of them. If you don't know why then watch All The President's Men.

And yes, while this is a CNN article and CNN are ****, Carl Bernstein has put his name to it in the byline so as a piece of journalism it already has far more credibility than anything else that's been reported about Trump, Clinton, or anything political in the U.S. in a long while.

Here is the document of which, it is claimed, Obama and Trump each receive a two-page synopsis.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... tions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit: To be absolutely clear. While the facts contained within this dossier is under serious doubt - because good journalists have been chasing this story for months and haven't been able to prove any of it, yet - there are currently no reasons to doubt the existence of the dossier, or how and when it came to be in the intelligence community's hands.

Can I just get this straight though, judging by this post, you are declaring that people who see this for the obvious fake news it is are parroting online 4chan perpetrated "lies" that this dossier is likely just a troll/shill; even though the dossier in question has (according to twitter) a section as obviously fake as this inside it.

Is that correct?

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:07 pm

At the end of the day Trump won the election for whatever reason under the system they have, HE WON. This constant smear campaign only causes further fractions and is quite frankly pathetic. Yes the blokes a nob but keep spewing bitterness and bullshit is not going to make the yanks rip up their constitution so people need to get on with it. We live in a crazy world a system in the UK that means 4 million Scots have more power than 8 million voters who voted for UKIP.... some people are quite happy as long as its in their favour. others will go with it while it suits them but bellyache like spoilt children when it doesn't.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:09 pm

Well said elwaclaret.

The democratic results we have seen need to be respected. That shouldn't stop us considering changing our electoral systems but some people desperately need just to get on with their lives.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:20 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Edit: To be absolutely clear. While the facts contained within this dossier is under serious doubt - because good journalists have been chasing this story for months and haven't been able to prove any of it, yet - there are currently no reasons to doubt the existence of the dossier, or how and when it came to be in the intelligence community's hands.

This has been another fun thread.

It brings to memory ImplodingTurtles beloved aphorism that "facts have a liberal bias". Little wonder, when you classify in your own head unproven and unsubstantiated allegations as "facts".

This kind of nonsense story highlights the need in these modern times for somebody to implement a new system whereby the veracity of a particular story can be judged somehow ... If only there were a way of checking this kind of thing!

This prescient and interesting video actually calls for smarter, more intelligent algorithms which could -potentially- sort the wheat from the chaff and decide which stories are suitably substantiated and therefore pass the test of rigour to make them worthy of wider publication:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvk2PQNcg8w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although it's an entertaining discussion, I'm not sure if the presenter or any of the students are aware that mankind has already invented something which fact-checks and verifies potential news stories and promotes only the ones judged as properly vetted and sourced.

It's not an algorithm or even a basic computer programme. They are called "editors".

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:43 pm

It's hilarious watching the left dive into a false oasis pool only to realise it's fake then spin their embarrassment

LongsideFacingUp · Post by **LongsideFacingUp** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:12 pm

Must have been an enjoyable hour and a half for the gullible idiots who thought this story might be true.

Not pointing fingers by the way. Finger pointing gets us nowhere.

Turtle.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:14 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:So we should be happy that we've got a POTUS who could be a disaster on a global scale, as long as we're at the front of the queue for some questionable trade deal in the future? Wouldn't you say that's more than a little bit short sighted, Rowls?

As for being swept up in the domestic politics of a foreign country, this isn't the prime minister of Portugal we're talking about. Trump arguably has the biggest and most important role in global politics, so surely you can understand peoples concerns regarding his suitability?

Stop being such a drama queen

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:19 pm

Charlie first state's the facts he believe's to be true and then look's for the news sources that support them.
No fake news for him!

grapidianclaret · Post by **grapidianclaret** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:18 pm

LongsideFacingUp wrote:Must have been an enjoyable hour and a half for the gullible idiots who thought this story might be true.

Not pointing fingers by the way. Finger pointing gets us nowhere.

Turtle.

There are many non gullible idiots who see this story as still having legs.
I do hope its true.
But even if it is not, it sure is enjoyable , seeing that orange f**k pig get some of his own medicine.
I can deal with 4 years of these stories.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:22 am

Geoff wrote:Right, so this debunks the statement made by Mike Pence was factually incorrect but not some of the pay for play allegations that arose from email leaks.

Does it matter? She lost. Get over it.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:25 am

Corky wrote:
Also I will assume - if that hotel had surveillance cameras and microphones etc. - that the Kremlin will also have compromising stuff on the Obamas'.

]

Only if you think the secret service is stupid enough as to allow the president to stay somewhere without performing any anti-surveillance checks.

No one is saying that the hotel spied on Trump.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:29 am

LongsideFacingUp wrote:This is the only thing about this saga that's a fair dig at Trump.

Getting bitten by an unverified, made up scandal does feel like karma for the Obama passport nonsense.

Do you not think that if Russia has compromising information on Trump that Trump hasn't already declared that that's also a fair dig? For Christ's sake, you're not even allowed to join the police force in ther UK if you're in debt because it opens you up to being blackmailed. Why should Trump be held to a lower standard than UK police officers?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:31 am

Acting Claret wrote:They need to change their voting system then.

I agree.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:34 am

Acting Claret wrote:Then they have the 42% of eligible voters who didn't vote to thank for the situation. That's 90 million people.
Same argument for remainers here. 13 million didn't vote one way or the other.

Lazy liberals. If you search for that term you'll see that i've referred to this group before. The American people have the president-elect it deserves.
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... ls#p226609" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It must **** with your head that you're saying things I agree with.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:35 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Only if you think the secret service is stupid enough as to allow the president to stay somewhere without performing any anti-surveillance checks.

I would think it more "stupid" of security services to imagine that they could guarantee anywhere in a country like Russia was 100% clear of surveillance equipment.

The most sensible option would be to simply act as if you were being monitored all of the time.

Story about Churchill: Following a meeting with Stalin in the Kremlin in which Stalin had been highly intransigent, Churchill declared very loudly in a 'private' room that he found Staling to be "extremely rude and ignorant". The next day, Stalin changed his tune entirely.

Whether it is true or not, it makes the point.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:37 am

Rowls wrote:2. You're worrying about something you cannot change and will have very little impact on your life. Yes, you should stop worrying about it. He's no less stable, mad or dangerous than many who have held equally important positions such as Stalin, Kennedy, Nixon or Krushev.

Set the bar lower. Go on, see if you can.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:38 am

Clarinetclaret wrote:Oh get over yourself, whoever is elected over there the world still goes on. This obsession with the American president by some of you is pathetic. We cant do anything about it so why do you care? Does American policy extend to Lancaster now?
If we had a vote fair enough, but we dont so for pitys sake get a bloody grip. Dont wet your panties over him.

If Trump nukes Moscow, do you think Russia will restrict its response to just America, or will they attack her allies aswell?

If you think this has nothing to do with us then I envy your naivety.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:39 am

Clarinetclaret wrote:So lets get this straight, you go round in everyday life worrying about who runs America and what they will do next, neither of which you can affect in any way as you don't live there and have a vote. Give your head a wobble.

And you go around worrying about what other people are interested by. Give your head a wobble.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:46 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:If Trump nukes Moscow, do you think Russia will restrict its response to just America, or will they attack her allies aswell?
If you think this has nothing to do with us then I envy your naivety.

I think we've established that Trump is the least likely President to "nuke" Moscow than any other President before?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:51 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Can I just get this straight though, judging by this post, you are declaring that people who see this for the obvious fake news it is are parroting online 4chan perpetrated "lies" that this dossier is likely just a troll/shill; even though the dossier in question has (according to twitter) a section as obviously fake as this inside it.

Is that correct?

Yes. It's so obviously fake isn't it? Only an idiot could be fooled into thinking that is part of a legitimate intelligence dossier.

Go ahead and find the page on which that paragraph appears.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... tions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have you ever considered fact checking this **** you find on Twitter or 4chan?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:00 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I seriously hope Buzzfeed burn over this scandal.

Why? All they've done is share with the public what political insiders and politicians have been sharing for months. Trump was briefed on compromising information the Russians had on him, and the briefing referred to this information. Do you not think it's in the public interest that they know what compromising information Russia is saying it has on their President?

And if this really is all true, then it's no longer compromising Donald Trump, is it? How can Russia blackmail Trump with this if everyone already knows?

So explain to me what your problem is with Buzzfeed reporting on this dossier.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:01 am

Rowls wrote:I would think it more "stupid" of security services to imagine that they could guarantee anywhere in a country like Russia was 100% clear of surveillance equipment.

Who is saying they're guarenteeing that?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:17 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Who is saying they're guarenteeing that?

That was the implication of your quote - the one I quoted.

Unless you imagine they do security sweeps for bugs with the aim of simply reducing the possibility of their conversations being recorded?

"OK Mr President we've done a sweep of the room and we're now up to 60% sure the room isn't bugged. Feel free to divulge national secrets...."

For example.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:20 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Why? All they've done is share with the public what political insiders and politicians have been sharing for months. Trump was briefed on compromising information the Russians had on him, and the briefing referred to this information. Do you not think it's in the public interest that they know what compromising information Russia is saying it has on their President?

And if this really is all true, then it's no longer compromising Donald Trump, is it? How can Russia blackmail Trump with this if everyone already knows?

So explain to me what your problem is with Buzzfeed reporting on this dossier.

People are going to get ****** off at Buzzfeed for posting unsubstantiated stories because it's unsubstantiated. There IS a reason that proper, distinguished news outlets with reputations wouldn't touch it.

If you don't understand why people don't want fabricated news stories then you are being wilfully ignorant whether you realise or not.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:21 am

Rowls wrote:That was the implication of your quote - the one I quoted.

Unless you imagine they do security sweeps for bugs with the aim of simply reducing the possibility of their conversations being recorded?

"OK Mr President we've done a sweep of the room and we're now up to 60% sure the room isn't bugged. Feel free to divulge national secrets...."

For example.

That's an unsurprisingly stupid interpretation of what I said.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:27 am

Rowls wrote:People are going to get ****** off at Buzzfeed for posting unsubstantiated stories because it's unsubstantiated. There IS a reason that proper, distinguished news outlets with reputations wouldn't touch it.

If you don't understand why people don't want fabricated news stories then you are being wilfully ignorant whether you realise or not.

The fact that the dossier exists isn't unsubstanciated. All they did was publish the dossier. They have been absolutely clear that the contents of it are unverified, all they've done is chose to share what politicians have been sharing.

How much more clearer than having this paragraph immediately following their headline can you expect them to be?

Are you really going to argue that what politicians are saying and sharing about each other isn't news?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:27 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:That's an unsurprisingly stupid interpretation of what I said.

OK, go ahead and explain what you meant by it then. Here it is again:

Imploding Turtle wrote:Only if you think the secret service is stupid enough as to allow the president to stay somewhere without performing any anti-surveillance checks.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:29 am

Rowls wrote:OK, go ahead and explain what you meant by it then. Here it is again:

That Trump is stupid enough to stay somewhere where he might be surveilled, and without doing anything to prevent it.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:35 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:The fact that the dossier exists isn't unsubstanciated. All they did was publish the dossier. They have been absolutely clear that the contents of it are unverified, all they've done is chose to share what politicians have been sharing.

Very well. You're completely right.

It's every editor out there of every major publication who has been offered this unsubstantiated story who is wrong. Not you.

They're all wrong and you and Buzzfeed are the ones who are right.

Buzzfeed. That well-respected bastion of the Truth. That highly regarded news outlet. The same people who brought you such gems as "Five Reasons Why It's OK For You to Masturbate" and "These Five Girls Try Out Vibrators".

They're the ones who have made the judgement call correctly on this one. Not the editorial team at the BBC, the Washington Post, the New Yorker, the Times, the Guardian or the Telegraph.

None of those pathetic MSM organisation called this correctly. No. They got it wrong. They wanted the story verifying with so-called "evidence" - how stupid is that??

And as you say - the dossier is actually, like, totally, physically exists as a thing with mass and weight and perhaps even an odour too.It's an actual thing. A real thing like what you can touch and everything. Nobody can deny that. Therefore it's News. It can't not be News when it's an actual thing.

It's News with a capital N.

Self-sustaining, self-actualizing, self-justifying News.

News.

News News News News

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:39 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:That Trump is stupid enough to stay somewhere where he might be surveilled, and without doing anything to prevent it.

Problems with that:

1. He isn't yet President. You said President; not 'Donald Trump'.
2. He doesn't have Presidential "secret services" yet (see above)
3. He hasn't been to Russia since he even became President elect.
4. Would a private citizen who wasn't President have "the secret services"?

*sigh*

But it's not as though you've often managed to maintain any kind of logical reasoning to your thoughts in the past. I should have known better really.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:41 am

Rowls wrote:Very well. You're completely right.

It's every editor out there of every major publication who has been offered this unsubstantiated story who is wrong. Not you.

Once again,and lets see if this sinks in this time, the story isn't unsubstantiated.

The story is that this dossier is being shares abome politicos in Washington and that Trump has had an intelligence briefing about it. That's the story. That all happened. No news organisation is reporting that what is in the dossier is true, they're reporting that the dossier exists, that it's being shared, and that Trump has had an intel briefing about it.

This isn't difficult to understand, unless you don't want to understand it.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:47 am

Rowls wrote:Problems with that:

1. He isn't yet President. You said President; not 'Donald Trump'.
2. He doesn't have Presidential "secret services" yet (see above)
3. He hasn't been to Russia since he even became President elect.
4. Would a private citizen who wasn't President have "the secret services"?

*sigh*

But it's not as though you've often managed to maintain any kind of logical reasoning to your thoughts in the past. I should have known better really.

1. I wasn't referring to Trump when i said "President".
2. Yes he does,educate yourself. But that fact is beside the point. The secret service wouldn't let Obama stay in a room without sweeping it. Trump very well might have stayed in a room without sweeping it.
3. Do you think this dossier that has existed for months before the election is saying that Trump did any of this after it was written?
4. What has that got to do with anything? I never said Trump has secret service protection when the alleged events of the dossierare supposed to have taken place.

Ever wonder why i call you an idiot? It's posts like this.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:04 am

Oh dear.

Let's keep it as simple as possible for you.

Did you have assemblies at school? I presume they're a mainstay of the school day. Assemblies often consisted of good advice - an attempt to teach you character traits as well as an academic education.

As you got older, the better teachers would have made the topics of assemblies more nuanced and open to interpretation but let's keep the register and tone as simple as possible for you.

Imagine it's assembly time again IT:

"OK children, most people have told a lie at some point. We know we shouldn't but none of us is perfect. If we get caught telling a lie we should say sorry and do our best not to do it again."

"But what do we do if we hear somebody else tell a lie? Maybe we don't know for ourselves that it's a lie but we think it could be. What do we do then?

"Do we rush and tell it again to somebody else? Even if we think that it might be a lie? What if, for example, your best friend tells you that Donald from class 2B did a very naughty thing? You might not know if it's true or if it's a lie - so what should you do? Should you go and say the same thing to your other friends?"

"No. Of course we shouldn't. Even if your friend who is telling you the story about Donald doesn't know if what they are saying is a lie or not - it might not be true."

"And then if you go and tell some other friends and then they go and tell their other friends then before you know it - the whole school might be telling tales about Donald which aren't true at all."

"So that's why we don't tell tales about other people. Whether we think they might not be true or not. Because one day it might be that somebody tells a tale about you which isn't true. And if that happens you won't want people telling tales that aren't true."

"If you hear somebody telling tales then go and tell a teacher and THEY will find out if it's true or not and it's just as likely that the person telling tales will end up in trouble for telling tales and making up stories."

Hopefully, you understand it better when it's put like this.

I had variations of this assembly from the age of 4 upwards and the lesson it speaks of is enshrined in our common culture and forms the basis of established journalism and accepted ethics.

Except for you and Buzzfeed.

For more exclusive content from Buzzfeed click on the link!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaY89TPgjak" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:13 am

The masturbation video you linked was more apropos to reality than the content of your post.

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:18 am

forget buzzfeed, after the press conference the story is that a POTUS-elect flatly denied CNN access to him in a....... press conference. He very, very publicly referred to them as "terrible" and "fake news." In addition the incoming POTUS press agent warned Jim Acosta from CNN that if he repeated his behavior (of asking to defend his agency by being allowed to pose a question) then he would not get into WH briefings

All directly in conflict with the constitution. It's so blatantly wrong of Trump and his team that even Fox News is defending CNN as an agency

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:19 am

OK, let's clear this up.

When you said

Imploding Turtle wrote:Only if you think the secret service is stupid enough as to allow the president to stay somewhere without performing any anti-surveillance checks.

you didn't mean that to actually say that the "security services" do a complete security check because we agree that would be impossible to guarantee

And what you actually meant when you said

Imploding Turtle wrote:Only if you think the secret service is stupid enough as to allow the president to stay somewhere without performing any anti-surveillance checks.

was actually

Imploding Turtle wrote:Trump very well might have stayed in a room without sweeping it.

You'll have to forgive me for being slow to understand you here but it's just that saying

Imploding Turtle wrote:Only if you think the secret service is stupid enough as to allow the president to stay somewhere without performing any anti-surveillance checks.

is a very oblique way of actually saying

Imploding Turtle wrote:Trump very well might have stayed in a room without sweeping it.

.

One has to make numerous, tenuous and unstated leaps of logic to get from one statement to the other.