Trump/Russia Dossier

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:28 am

NRC wrote: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

Coming from an outsider looking inward at a country with the military-geopolitical muscle of America, the rigour of the US constitution relieves a lot of anxieties.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:33 am

NRC wrote:forget buzzfeed, after the press conference the story is that a POTUS-elect flatly denied CNN access to him in a....... press conference.
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

I'm no expert on the US Constitution but are you sure that refusing a news outlet is unconstitutional? It seems unlikely to me.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:43 am

Usurping the spirit of the 1st amendment? What could possibly go wrong?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:48 am

The first amendment: The President has to directly answer all questions put to him and cannot tell CNN reporters where to go?

This crummy President will tell all sorts of people where to go and it I doubt it will be at all unconstitutional.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:14 am

Naive. Well, I know you're not that naive, but your faux naivety serves your argument.

That a proposed policy is constitutional or otherwise is the foundation of US political discourse. You know as well as I do that the banning of a news outlet as prominent as CNN from press briefings would be tantamount to political censorship.

On an unrelated side note, I'm utterly convinced that your persistent f.uckheadedness is actually a quite deliberate and methodical schtick, a game whereby you reel people in (groom them?) with just enough coherence to establish yourself of being worthy of engaging, of response; then proceed to subvert their established expectation of you with incoherent, illogical b0llocks; you waiting for the inevitable "come on Rowls, you can't be that dumb", intellectually/emotionally gratifying happy ending. You absolutely crave people giving you intellectual benefit of the doubt.

grapidianclaret · Post by **grapidianclaret** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:14 am

OK. Here is the big question. Not , does Buzzfeed have the right to publish, the golden shower stuff,not, does Donald have the right to insult a CNN journalist, not, will Donald refuse to talk to his two sons for the next four years,but, why is Donald so interested in not upsetting the Russians and their journalist murdering leader?
Seriously, it is a very important question and the next four years could hinge on the answer , both in Europe and the USA.

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:22 am

Rowls wrote:I'm no expert on the US Constitution but are you sure that refusing a news outlet is unconstitutional? It seems unlikely to me.

Well Mr Rowls, the 1st amendment specifically qualifies the press to essentially be covered under the same citizen right as the freedom of speech. In effect Trump, by denying the question was denying freedom of speech and in particular when all the reporter wanted to do was to ask a question that would lead to Trump's scurrilous claim that CNN was fake news being seen for what it was - an abuse of power and quite possibly slanderous

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:59 am

No, one doesn't. One just has to not be looking for something that isn't there, which is basically your modus operandi.

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:03 am

Anderson Cooper, Trump adviser clash ov ... urn false;

Love Anderson Cooper. He tears her a new one every time

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:06 am

NRC wrote: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

Only thing i take issue with here is that it is in conflict with the constitution. I think that's a stretch.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:08 am

Spiral wrote:Usurping the spirit of the 1st amendment? What could possibly go wrong?

Even the US government isn't required to allow someone a platform from which to speak.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:10 am

grapidianclaret wrote:OK. Here is the big question. Not , does Buzzfeed have the right to publish, the golden shower stuff,not, does Donald have the right to insult a CNN journalist, not, will Donald refuse to talk to his two sons for the next four years,but, why is Donald so interested in not upsetting the Russians and their journalist murdering leader?
Seriously, it is a very important question and the next four years could hinge on the answer , both in Europe and the USA.

BUT HER EMAILS

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:21 am

NRC wrote:Anderson Cooper, Trump adviser clash ov ... urn false;

Love Anderson Cooper. He tears her a new one every time

Anderson Cooper wrote:... what CNN said was, and i quote, "classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN".

A perfect quote and without once looking for something to read it from. Conway made her self look a tit trying to tell Cooper what was in the reporting and by denying that Spicer was wrong.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:05 am

Damo wrote:Stop being such a drama queen

Thank you for that valuable contribution, Damo.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:20 am

F**king hell Rowls

I mean, f**king hell

Trump just told the 1st Amendment to just do one, and you think that is fine?

What are the free principles of a democracy again?

Yeah, free press - which unless it asks the questions that Rowls wants, he's against

Free judiciary - again, unless it doesn't ask the questions that Rowls wants, he's against (see numerous EU threads)

Only got one more pillar of democracy to kick over Rowls and you are there.

Are you sure your political views are not a bit too much authoritarian?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:32 am

NRC wrote:Well Mr Rowls, the 1st amendment specifically qualifies the press to essentially be covered under the same citizen right as the freedom of speech. In effect Trump, by denying the question was denying freedom of speech and in particular when all the reporter wanted to do was to ask a question that would lead to Trump's scurrilous claim that CNN was fake news being seen for what it was - an abuse of power and quite possibly slanderous

The problem with this is that if we consider a president not answering questions from a specific news organisation on the basis that freedom of the press is equal to a citizen's freedom of speech (it absolutely is) then that means any time a president refuses to answer a question he's violating the constitution. It's a massive over-reach to call this unconstitutional.

Trump can revoke CNN's White House credentials if he wants and he's still not violating the constitution because a president has no constitutional obligation to talk to them, or any press for that matter. All he's constitutionally obliged to do when it comes to addressing the public is to inform congress on the state of the union once a year.

The only thing preventing a president from getting rid of the White House press corps is that it would be political suicide and strategically unsound, but it's not illegal.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:40 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.

Shame about the snip I found not being real in the dossier, I was almost crying when I read that, oh well, if it's too good to be true and all... So no, I really didn't siv through 35 pages of what is almost certainly just a load of crap.

My problem is that this was promoted by one of the worlds largest news outlets (CNN) and published by another big one, despite having no hard evidence what so ever. It was known full well that the reports and accusations contained inside would be used as a political weapon against Trump whether they were real or not, and the aim here was simply to smear, nothing else.

If major media outlets started publishing the "pizzagate" scandal as if it was legitimate news, instead of totally avoiding it, or if they had to mention it, always ensured they wrote in the title "fake news story" you would be singing a very different tune.

If news outlets were allowed to post every piece of garbage that gets sent in to them, just because they think the story runs with their political agenda, we would not have news, at all. Every major political figure has at least one fabricated smear story created about them and sent into media outlets at some point or another, (the bigger the political figure, the larger amount) and it's the sole role of journalists to vet this information that comes their way and ensure it is something they can stand by.

Buzzfeed in particular, didn't do that. They didn't even try, they just really hoped it was real, and we're desperate for the clicks it would get them. They didn't know or care about the ethics or professional standards they were tarnishing, they simply wanted to smear Trump before his inauguration, and get themselves a whole lot of clicks in the process. That's it. Its the very definition of fake news, yet you defend it; and the only reason you defend this, as much as you want to dress it up as something else, is because you hate Trump, that's literally it.

mikeS · Post by **mikeS** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:41 am

We get the politicians we deserve. Trump, May, Corbyn, Putin, Merkel, the list just rolls on and on

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:50 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Shame about the snip I found not being real in the dossier, I was almost crying when I read that, oh well, if it's too good to be true and all... So no, I really didn't siv through 35 pages of what is almost certainly just a load of crap.

And this is why i won't waste my time reading the rest of your post.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:55 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:And this is why i won't waste my time reading the rest of your post.

Well, that and because you know I'm right.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:00 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:
My problem is that this was promoted by one of the worlds largest news outlets (CNN) and published by another big one, despite having no hard evidence what so ever. It was known full well that the reports and accusations contained inside would be used as a political weapon against Trump whether they were real or not, and the aim here was simply to smear, nothing else.

OK. I gave you one more chance so i decided to read the rest of your post, but I stopped here. You're too far gone to be reasoned with and you proudly have no idea what you're talking about.

CNN didn't promote anything, they reported on something that was absolutely worth reporting. What they reported on isn't the 35 page dossier, nor did they even mention anything that's in it. What they reported on is the fact that Trump received a 2-page, written intelligence briefing about what it is that Russia is supposed to possess.

So not only do you not know the difference between promotion and journalism, you're also dead wrong on the facts.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:02 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Well, that and because you know I'm right.

Like you were when you joyously provided cast iron proof that there was no way the dossier could possibly be legit? Remind me again how that went.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:05 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:What they reported on is the fact that Trump received a 2-page, written intelligence briefing about what it is that Russia is supposed to possess.

So not only do you not know the difference between promotion and journalism, you're also dead wrong on the facts.

So why is Trump saying he hasn't been briefed on this?

Geoff · Post by **Geoff** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:07 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Does it matter? She lost. Get over it.

Does what matter Charles? The fact that you are posting misinformation? Or that you can't back up your arguments with proof and were called out on it? I think it is you that is a bit stuck on Hillary losing, hence you posting this drivel.

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.

So you've gone from posting a story suggesting Trump could be in cahoots with Russia and that they have leverage over him to "IF TRUMP NUKES RUSSIA..." Dug yourself into a little bit of a hole here haven't you Charles? Eh?

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?

You really have been taken in hook, line and sinker by this fake news story. Haven't you?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump ... gs-n705586" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"President-elect Donald Trump was not told about unverified reports that Russia has compromising information on him during last week's intelligence briefing, according to a senior intelligence official with knowledge of preparations for the briefing. "

"The document, which was not prepared by the U.S. government, contains obvious errors. It was originally generated as part of opposition research by anti-Trump Republicans and then shopped by Democrats."

"According to the senior official, the two-page summary about the unsubstantiated material made available to the briefers was to provide context, should they need it, to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted "disinformation.""

So this means BuzzFeed, CNN, NYT, and multiple other outlets published unsourced claims that were supposed to be examples of "disinformation" in intelligence meetings. Quite a big blow to media credibility.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump ... gs-n705586" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:11 am

Sidney1st wrote:So why is Trump saying he hasn't been briefed on this?

Probably because he's a liar. Or being cute with the truth since the 35-page dossier won't specifically be what such a briefing would be about.

This dossier isn't the work of an intelligence agency like the CIA or NSA. It was opposition research carried out by Republican and Democratic opponents of Trump's during the election. If the intelligence services of the U.S. are going to give a briefing on something they're going to give a briefing on their own work, not the outcome of oppo research.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:14 am

Its probably a fake story, but CNN (a reputable, world wide respected news organisation) are not allowed to ask President Trump questions and he calls them "fake news", while breibart (a news agency with a history of "fake news") have the ear of the president.

This is going to be ace or a complete shitstorm, depending on your point of view.

I didn't think it before, but after that press conference, I genuinely think that Trump will be impeached at some stage of his presidency. He really has no idea about what he's taken on and the constitutional brakes that even that position has.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:15 am

Geoff wrote:Does what matter Charles? The fact that you are posting misinformation? Or that you can't back up your arguments with proof and were called out on it? I think it is you that is a bit stuck on Hillary losing, hence you posting this drivel.

What misinformation have i posted?
What arguments have i made that have no proof?

So you've gone from posting a story suggesting Trump could be in cahoots with Russia and that they have leverage over him to "IF TRUMP NUKES RUSSIA..." Dug yourself into a little bit of a hole here haven't you Charles? Eh?

Out of context it would seem like i've taken this topic off course, but then you've quite deliberately chosen not to include the post to which i was referring. What was that you were saying about misinformation?

You really have been taken in hook, line and sinker by this fake news story. Haven't you?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump ... gs-n705586" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"President-elect Donald Trump was not told about unverified reports that Russia has compromising information on him during last week's intelligence briefing, according to a senior intelligence official with knowledge of preparations for the briefing. "

"The document, which was not prepared by the U.S. government, contains obvious errors. It was originally generated as part of opposition research by anti-Trump Republicans and then shopped by Democrats."

"According to the senior official, the two-page summary about the unsubstantiated material made available to the briefers was to provide context, should they need it, to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted "disinformation.""

So this means BuzzFeed, CNN, NYT, and multiple other outlets published unsourced claims that were supposed to be examples of "disinformation" in intelligence meetings. Quite a big blow to media credibility.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump ... gs-n705586" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've been taken in hook, line and sinker? This from someone who chooses to believe a proven serial liar in Donald Trump over the independent reporting of the New York Times, CNN and the Wall Street Journal.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:15 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:OK. I gave you one more chance so i decided to read the rest of your post, but I stopped here. You're too far gone to be reasoned with and you proudly have no idea what you're talking about.

CNN didn't promote anything, they reported on something that was absolutely worth reporting. What they reported on isn't the 35 page dossier, nor did they even mention anything that's in it. What they reported on is the fact that Trump received a 2-page, written intelligence briefing about what it is that Russia is supposed to possess.

So not only do you not know the difference between promotion and journalism, you're also dead wrong on the facts.

They did promote it, and they knew full well what they were doing too. They knew that by highlighting this non-story that it would pass the baton onto other news outlets who would take the hit for them. They aren't anywhere near as stupid as buzzfeed, who gleefully and moronically posted the full dossier as if it was legitimate because they knew it would destroy them, especially considering half the population already think they are a politically infiltrated network.

There is a reason every other major media outlet and almost every prominent reporter passed on this. They knew if it was real, it was the story of the century, but they passed on it, you know why? Because there was no supporting evidence, none what so ever. They could not stand by it. They could not verify it. CNN have been around long enough, and are experienced enough to know that you can't just go and publish stuff like that, so they simply put a flag up, and came to see who would come calling.

This will hopefully destroy Buzzfeed, but if it doesn't then prepare for this type of rubbish to become the new type of "news". It will pave the way for journalists to publish what ever the hell they want, regardless of authenticity, sources, evidence, whatever. It will kill what little confidence people have in the media, and the whole thing will be enabled by people like yourself, who are happy to turn a blind eye because its being used against the person you don't like.

LoveCurryPies · Post by **LoveCurryPies** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:22 am

If video evidence became available, he would be finished. Please let this happen! : )

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:26 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:They did promote it, and they knew full well what they were doing too. They knew that by highlighting this non-story that it would pass the baton onto other news outlets who would take the hit for them. They aren't anywhere near as stupid as buzzfeed, who gleefully and moronically posted the full dossier as if it was legitimate because they knew it would destroy them, especially considering half the population already think they are a politically infiltrated network.

There is a reason every other major media outlet and almost every prominent reporter passed on this. They knew if it was real, it was the story of the century, but they passed on it, you know why? Because there was no supporting evidence, none what so ever. They could not stand by it. They could not verify it. CNN have been around long enough, and are experienced enough to know that you can't just go and publish stuff like that, so they simply put a flag up, and came to see who would come calling.

This will hopefully destroy Buzzfeed, but if it doesn't then prepare for this type of rubbish to become the new type of "news". It will pave the way for journalists to publish what ever the hell they want, regardless of authenticity, sources, evidence, whatever. It will kill what little confidence people have in the media, and the whole thing will be enabled by people like yourself, who are happy to turn a blind eye because its being used against the person you don't like.

You're still posting this **** as if you think that CNN reported on the dossier. They didn't. They reported on the intelligence briefing Trump received.

And you're still coming with this bullshit that journalism is now "promotion". That's the dumbest possible interpretation of journalism.

Tell you what. Find me a single thing about this story that CNN's article has said that is both untrue and has gone uncorrected.
I'll make it easy for you, here it is. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/polit ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I suspect this will be the first time you'll have read it. You have already expressed a habit of posting in this topic without bothering to inform yourself on what it is you're criticising.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:32 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its probably a fake story, but CNN (a reputable, world wide respected news organisation) are not allowed to ask President Trump questions and he calls them "fake news", while breibart (a news agency with a history of "fake news") have the ear of the president.

This is going to be ace or a complete shitstorm, depending on your point of view.

I didn't think it before, but after that press conference, I genuinely think that Trump will be impeached at some stage of his presidency. He really has no idea about what he's taken on and the constitutional brakes that even that position has.

It's almost certainly not a fake story. When 3 different news organisations can each independently report that something happened then it's near certain that it happened.

I'm not sure he'll be impeached before his VP invokes section 4 of the 25th amendment declaring Trump unfit to fulfil the duties of his office.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:37 am

I never once said they reported the dossier, its common knowledge they didn't. My belief is that they strategically didn't but hoped that by highlighting the issue, it would bring either other networks out of the shadow to do it for them, or as appears to be the case, would get lower level media outlets with an axe to grind to go scouting and publish it themselves.

And journalism can be promotion, just as it can be propaganda, or libel, or of course, news. Journalism isn't limited to it's definition, the content and its objectives further define it on a case by case basis. On this occasion, I believe it was promotion of a non-story, in order to create a sh!tstorm, just before the inauguration. I don't profess my opinion as fact, but I strongly believe that to be the case.

Besides, I notice you ignored my last comment about how by enabling this type of fake news publishing by Buzzfeed, we are paving the way for this type of thing to become the norm.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:46 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I never once said they reported the dossier, its common knowledge they didn't. My belief is that they strategically didn't but hoped that by highlighting the issue, it would bring either other networks out of the shadow to do it for them, or as appears to be the case, would get lower level media outlets with an axe to grind to go scouting and publish it themselves.

So you agree they didn't do the bad thing, but think they should be criticised anyway because you think that they psychically encouraged someone else do the bad thing. Brilliant.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:54 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:

So you agree they didn't do the bad thing, but think they should be criticised anyway because you think that they psychically encouraged someone else do the bad thing. Brilliant.

Yes I do. I think they should be criticized for it, I think it was malicious and politically motivated. Its dirty, but as you say, they knew what they could get away with and kept it within that line. Buzzfeed on the other hand knowingly published what is likely fake news for clicks and political reasons, they should burn for this.

Just out of curiosity, do you honestly think Russia is blackmailing Trump with allegations that he paid prostitutes to pee on a bed because Obama and his wife slept in it? Legit question.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:55 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:
Besides, I notice you ignored my last comment about how by enabling this type of fake news publishing by Buzzfeed, we are paving the way for this type of thing to become the norm.

Honestly? There's just so much rubbish in your posts that to reply to all of it would take too long. I have no problem with what Buzzfeed published because Buzzfeed isn't CNN and Buzzfeed also made it crystal clear that the contents of the dossier were unverified.

And you keep calling it fake news. The dossier exists. How can reporting on something that actually exists be "fake news"? They're not saying the dossier is accurate, all they're doing is publishing something that politicians in Washington have been able to read for months already.

You don't know what fake news is, so my advice would be to go away, inform yourself, and come back when your opinion is an informed one.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:56 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote: Its dirty, but as you say, they knew what they could get away with and kept it within that line.

Lol, what? I said nothing of the sort. You've resorted to lying now.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:01 am

One thing is for sure, that more "fake news" that is peddled as fact, the more likely it is that people will believe all sorts of **** because they want to.

See Bluelabs posts on here for starters.

That isn't good at all

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:02 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:One thing is for sure, that more "fake news" that is peddled as fact, the more likely it is that people will believe all sorts of **** because they want to.

See Bluelabs posts on here for starters.

That isn't good at all

There's also the problem of people calling every news item they don't like "fake news".

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:15 am

There is that.

Geoff · Post by **Geoff** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:17 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:What misinformation have i posted?
What arguments have i made that have no proof?

Well for starters you claimed that the allegations that were made against Clinton Foundation were debunked. Then when asked for proof you posted an article by Politifact debunking, or at least partially dedunking this statement from Mike Pence -

"We know that more than half of Hillary Clinton's meetings while she was secretary of state were given to major contributors to the Clinton Foundation."

I say partially debunked as politifact decided that Mike Pence's statement was mostly false or if you wanted to word that differently to fit a different narative they admitted that there was some truth in what Mike Pence said. The only part of his statement that was was factually incorrect was the 'more than half' part.

So my point being that a link to a fact checking site debunking a statement made by Mike Pence ≠ dedunking the Clinton Foundation allegations, and you know this. So the question begs, why post it?

I'd also like to see you back up you claim that the Clinton Foundation allegations have actually been debunked, should be easy as they were "repeatedly" debunked during the campaign.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Out of context it would seem like i've taken this topic off course, but then you've quite deliberately chosen not to include the post to which i was referring. What was that you were saying about misinformation?

You were replying to two sepearte posters here, were you not? So their arguments didn't have much bearing when bringing into question the consistency of yours.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I've been taken in hook, line and sinker? This from someone who chooses to believe a proven serial liar in Donald Trump over the independent reporting of the New York Times, CNN and the Wall Street Journal.

Where have I suggested I believe a single word Donald Trump has said? I posted an article and quotes from the NBC article, that cited an unamed official. Here's the first quote from my previous post again incase you are struggling to understand it, but be warned - primary school level comprehsion is required.

"President-elect Donald Trump was not told about unverified reports that Russia has compromising information on him during last week's intelligence briefing, according to a senior intelligence official with knowledge of preparations for the briefing. "

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:21 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:There's also the problem of people calling every news item they don't like "fake news".

Much like the new trend of people calling every vote they don't like 'unfair'

The art of reasoned debate and seeing others' point of view is almost gone

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:29 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Lol, what? I said nothing of the sort. You've resorted to lying now.

If I am lying about you with that statement then surely you are lying about me by suggesting I said CNN published the dossier?

Also, I'll ask again because I really want to know. Do you genuinely think that Trump paid a bunch of hookers to **** on a bed because Obama and his wife once slept in it, and is consequently being blackmailed by putin over it?

7decades · Post by **7decades** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:31 am

There are leaks and then again there are LEAKS!!!

bluelabrador16 · Post by **bluelabrador16** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:33 am

Gosh!

Shady “Fact Checking” Sources Snopes and Politifact DEBUNKED!

(By Caleb Stephen)

"The mainstream media is undoubtedly the biggest collective proponent of fake news, and they often rely upon highly flawed third party sources for their “fact-checking” needs. Such sources include the liberal “myth busting” website Snopes and the similarly slanted internet wasteland Politifact.....

http://themostimportantnews.com/archive ... t-debunked" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...Neither can be trusted and any article relying on either outlet for “fact checking” cannot be trusted.."

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:39 am

Guich wrote:Much like the new trend of people calling every vote they don't like 'unfair'

It's not every vote, Guich, and it's not because it's unfair.

It''s one particular vote that's being discussed here, and it will continue to be discussed for a long time, because an extraordinarily stupid vote has enabled a man like Donald Trump to become the President of the United States.

If that isn't worth 'complaining' about, then I don't know what is.

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:46 am

Was the Trump vote more stupid then the Brexit vote ?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:50 am

Geoff wrote:Well for starters you claimed that the allegations that were made against Clinton Foundation were debunked. Then when asked for proof you posted an article by Politifact debunking, or at least partially dedunking this statement from Mike Pence -

"We know that more than half of Hillary Clinton's meetings while she was secretary of state were given to major contributors to the Clinton Foundation."

I say partially debunked as politifact decided that Mike Pence's statement was mostly false or if you wanted to word that differently to fit a different narative they admitted that there was some truth in what Mike Pence said. The only part of his statement that was was factually incorrect was the 'more than half' part.

So my point being that a link to a fact checking site debunking a statement made by Mike Pence ≠ dedunking the Clinton Foundation allegations, and you know this. So the question begs, why post it?

I'd also like to see you back up you claim that the Clinton Foundation allegations have actually been debunked, should be easy as they were "repeatedly" debunked during the campaign.

Pay-for-play were the only credible allegations against the Cinton Foundation. And they were debunked. You're having a good go at spinning that though, aren't you?

That said, here are a few others.

Here's another false claim Trump made about the Clinton Foundation - http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/a-fals ... ion-claim/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here's someone else making **** up about it - http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-vet ... nium-deal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here's one that hasn't been debunked, although it's one that alleges Clinton had someone killed (quite the serial killer she is) - http://www.snopes.com/monica-petersen-killed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ah yes, i remember this one. The Khan family received $375k from the Clinton Foundation. - http://www.snopes.com/khizr-khan-375000 ... oundation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I could go on. I think if i spent enought time looking i might even find someone wrong about the CF that might actually be true. Who knows? But the major beers Trumpettes had with it have certainly either been debunked or shown to have no supporting evidence.

I could go on. I did find another, quite recent one (last week) about a claim that Chelsea Clinton's wedding was paid for by the foundation, but that one is adjudged to have no evidence supporting it.

Like everything else, people have been trying to nail Hillary for decades and they haven't been able to. The only thing they really had on her was her decision to use a private email server while at the state department but even then no wrong doing could be proven. Not that that matters. Guilty until proven innocent is how it goes for Clinton while Trump gets away with everything. But i stopped expecting consistency from far right-wingers a long time ago.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:50 am

claretdom wrote:Was the Trump vote more stupid then the Brexit vote ?

Yes.

LongsideFacingUp · Post by **LongsideFacingUp** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:54 am

Good lord it's enjoyable to see Turtle keep spinning his tyres in this thread.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:55 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:If I am lying about you with that statement then surely you are lying about me by suggesting I said CNN published the dossier?

I don't believe i said you said that. I stand to be corrected though, if you can show me where i did.

Also, I'll ask again because I really want to know. Do you genuinely think that Trump paid a bunch of hookers to **** on a bed because Obama and his wife once slept in it, and is consequently being blackmailed by putin over it?

I don't know. But I honestly don't give a **** if he did. Trump's fetishes only interest me because fetishes can be funny. I don't think hiring Russian prostitutes is much of a scandal compared to some other things he's got up to that we actually know about. Nor do i think that that's what will get him into trouble if this dossier turned out to be true. If it's true it'll be the collusion that will end his presidency and see him impeached if it ever came out, not *******.