Everyone knows that only applies before you take ownership. Uphauling!
Comey Fired!
- Thread starter Musburger1
- Start date
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Russia spreads so much propaganda that I'm not sure they know what's real. Forward to 1:20 in the video below and you'll see Putin claim the soldiers in Crimea were not Russian soldiers but rather "self defense forces". One can only surmise that now they don't feel they need to create fake sites and leverage the web brigade to spread their BS.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Just to be clear, I definitely wasn't saying that was the RIGHT attitude. Just likely that it was Trump's attitude. And btw as events have unfolded I'm more inclined to buy the argument that Trump requested the memo. But at this point, who knows. When someone actually goes on the record and testifies, I'll pay more attention.
It absolutely is. In reading some of the NY Times articles of late, I'm shocked by basic lack of journalistic ethics. No attempt to interview opposing viewpoints. Statements of opinions about what legislation will do or is intended to do couched as fact. Loaded language. Outright distortions. People talking about what a great job journalists are doing don't know anything about journalism. It doesn't take great journalists to pick up a phone, listen to an anonymous source read part of an email and then write a story about it by talking to a bunch of partisans who agree with your agenda.
Journalism is a complete embarrassment right now. Anyone claiming otherwise doesn't have a clue.
And no, I don't like Trump, and I don't care if he's impeached for cause. Frankly, I'd take Pence as the new president today, no questions asked, if I had my way.
I don't believe that was Trump's attitude. There's no way to know that for sure, but I don't buy that Trump even believed he had bigger priorities. For a few days, maybe. For almost 4 months? No. Nevertheless, as suspicious as I am of the firing, I'm not assuming that some illegal or unethical reason drove the decision.
Speaking of poor journalism, you're ignoring the context of comment. Lol.
The same journalists who are doing what you're talking about (and I agree with you that these tricks are happening on a regular basis) didn't suddenly become raging partisans. They were liberal Democrats before Trump as well and reveled in the defeat of Mitt Romney and John McCain and prayed for the defeat of George Bush. Furthermore, they wrote their commentaries and articles with a priority of making them look bad and making Democrats look good. Hell, the NYT hasn't decided to endorse a Democratic nominee since 1956. They've been shallow and rabidly partisan hacks for decades. That's very clear.
As I indicated, what has changed is how overt the partisanship has become. The veil has come off (or certainly gotten much thinner), and they care a lot less about preserving the facade of integrity they used to maintain.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
True, that's always been the case. But in the past, as you say, I think they were at least willing to quote someone they disagreed with, or even run an op-ed piece and not apologize when half their subscribers threaten to cancel over it. The columnists have always been bad, but they're columnists and that's what they do. I get that. What I'm seeing now that I didn't used to see is a total lack of journalism ethics.
And I think that's largely due to a new breed of journalist. They've been raised not to see journalism as a quest for the truth, but as a way to bring down the bad guy. Once you decide that someone's not just conservative, but an evil person, then there's no justification in their mind for talking to them when all they'll do (in your view) is spout lies and cover-ups. In fact, that's largely what seems to be espoused in universities now - safe spaces for some, not for ones we disagree with. Selective free speech is now the norm under which people grow up, so I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that journalism has grown to reflect that.
You are correct. It's a political and cultural opposition to one side, and it's more than mere disagreement. It's contempt and an unfounded assumption that someone who doesn't share their worldview is morally corrupt. You use the term "conservative," but I think it's more than that. It's contempt for anybody who has a traditional Western worldview of any kind.
Clean
5,000+ Posts
^^ Deez is spot on.
It's a MSM blitzkrieg featuring "journalistic" pieces that mostly cite anonymous sources. It doesn't matter if they're truthful or not. It only matters how many clicks they get. How much media buzz they create. It's psychological warfare. It takes a toll whether it is correct or not.
By the time the facts come out, the MSM has moved on to the next big thing. Not many care that last week's MSM "big reveal" was just a bunch of hysterical BS.
I've never seen anything like it.
It's a MSM blitzkrieg featuring "journalistic" pieces that mostly cite anonymous sources. It doesn't matter if they're truthful or not. It only matters how many clicks they get. How much media buzz they create. It's psychological warfare. It takes a toll whether it is correct or not.
By the time the facts come out, the MSM has moved on to the next big thing. Not many care that last week's MSM "big reveal" was just a bunch of hysterical BS.
I've never seen anything like it.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Another NYT above-the-fold big fat lie. Why do they keep doing this?
Rosenstein debunked today
And here we have the WAPO caught doing the same
Seems like a new lie every day
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
And here we have the WAPO caught doing the same
Seems like a new lie every day
The 2 people that Trump reportedly asked were Dan Coats and Adm Rogers. I'm not sure how James Brennan who left office effective January when Trump took office is applicable to their earlier reporting.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Brennan here is admitting they were spying on (or "wiretapping") the Trump Campaign, just as Trump alleged and Brennan denied in the past
Were they spying on the Trump Campaign or the Russians that came into contact with the campaign? The latter is clearly within their mandate. When did spying become synonymous with "wiretapping"? Since it was needed to justify Trumps imagination?
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
[edited out Godwin reference]Brennan here is admitting they were spying on (or "wiretapping") the Trump Campaign, just as Trump alleged and Brennan denied in the past
I mean sweet Jesus!
think you meant...GOP nominee.
that is not what this says at all. It says they were focused on collecting on Russians that were trying to impact our election. There may have been an effort to collect on Trumps campaign but this article doesn't state that. If they are collecting on Russians and happen to hear/see/collect communications to Trumps campaign, that is vastly different than a direct effort to collect on Trumps campaign. It matters what the target is. If the target is Russians and Trump is incidental that is a very different thing than focusing on Trump and/or Trumps campaign.Brennan here is admitting they were spying on (or "wiretapping") the Trump Campaign, just as Trump alleged and Brennan denied in the past
Yes, that is what I meant.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I agree with this. I would also go further and say, IF they picked up intel on a Russian line that they had access to that had Manafort, Page, Kushner, etc. talking on and that information led to probable cause to get a FISA warrant to "tapp" those individual's phones, THEN that's not some spurious rogue "tapping" of "my" phone lines. That's good police work.
It gives me a headache to even read through this line of intelligence, counter-espionage BS. For God's Sake, we are debating the legitimacy of some 'panty sniffers' intrusion into our personal lives, IN THE ABSOLUTE BEST SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. I gather that that invasion of privacy is accepted as a 'given'. Hell, Himmler would have done jigs if he'd had such a compliant populace. Wake up! You clowns. IF the damn libs truly believed the Russians could affect elections, they'd already be on the payroll.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Maybe they didn't pay enough....
Not sure I understand completely what you're saying but if you're complaining about how much information the government collects, I'm right there with you. If you're complaining about how much info the ISPs are allowed to collect, I'm right there with you.
If you're complaining about incidental collection of US persons while the IC is collecting on potentially hostile/adversarial/competitive countries, then I would have to disagree. It would be virtually impossible to ensure that you don't have incidental collection on a US person while you are collecting on your adversaries. We have safeguards/rules in place to deal with incidental collection.
And manipulating the media is tantamount to affecting our elections. Hacking servers, dropping documents at opportune times is affecting our elections.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Unless you're the DNC, in which case you can get pre-approval of articles, feed interview questions to candidates, and generally do whatever you want.
What are the safeguards and rules that are in place to deal with incidental collection?
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I'm sure the RNC is fully above board...Funny, wikileaks (Russia) hasn't released any information from the RNC. I'm sure they don't have any reason to be digging and releasing from one and not the other...
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
The RNC's security wasn't breached after multiple attempts because the Reps weren't dumb enough to hire three Pakistani Muslim brothers to run their IT. Not to mention even 12 year olds know to delete Phish emails like Podesta's staff opened. smh
"Brothers Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan were barred from computer networks at the House of Representatives Thursday.
Three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of the nation’s most sensitive issues and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.
Also among those whose computer systems may have been compromised is Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Florida Democrat who was previously the target of a disastrous email hack when she served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 campaign.
The brothers are suspected of serious violations, including accessing members’ computer networks without their knowledge and stealing equipment from Congress."
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
They aren't the ones claiming the election was "hacked" because of stories in the media which were encouraged by people trying to influence the outcome of the election. You really do echo the Sooner line about being confronted with your violations and saying "oh like (insert school) isn't doing things?" Except the fact is they're not - or at least not nearly to the level that your team is doing them. But hey, as long as you can find a jaywalker, go ahead and ignore all the street signs you want, because NO ONE follows the traffic laws!
Do you remember any issues with Fox getting their stories pre-approved by the RNC? If they did it, then I'd be against that, too. It's one thing to be biased. It's another thing to be dishonest.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
My point is that you're kidding yourself if you think that wikileaks doesn't have a treasure trove of junk on Trump and the RNC. They simply have a shared goal at the current time. That will change at some point. Just need some more patriots to get on board. 
Can you imagine if you'd have polled the population that flies Gadsden flags about 5 years ago on their stance on Russian interference in our elections. And then poll them now. The difference would be stark. Can you imagine if the Russians had helped get Clinton elected? It would be human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.
Can you imagine if you'd have polled the population that flies Gadsden flags about 5 years ago on their stance on Russian interference in our elections. And then poll them now. The difference would be stark. Can you imagine if the Russians had helped get Clinton elected? It would be human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
