Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 10:18:30 GMT -5
Gotcha. So... nothing. There's literally nothing in that "news" article showing a November post on 4chan having anything to do with golden showers. Nothing at all. Shocker - I was right. You stated something as indisputable fact that has nothing backing it up other than some anonymous dude on the internet making a claim he can't prove. How unlike you. Get a job. Why so much anger James? I think at this point we don't know anything either way. It looks like this has all been made up, as the original source is a hack that won't show his face in public and it sounds like the CIA has said they sat on this for months because none of it added up. Why not direct that anger towards CNN or Buzzfeed who reported it as fact and decided to run it without any verifiable sources? If Fox had claimed that Obama had indulged in blow and hookers, can you imagine the media/public outcry towards them for being racist and fake news. Lets hold everyone accountable in the same regard. Also, you never answered my questions. Do you think the involvement Russia had in our election (whatever that turns out to be), had a greater influence on the voters than the domestic media bias towards HRC and against DJT?
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Jan 13, 2017 11:04:41 GMT -5
Well, I don't read buzzfeed so I don't much give a shit what they post. Do people consider it a credible news source? I was under the impression it was a click-bait website. No? Click-bait gonna click-bait.
My understanding was CNN didn't report that Trump was involved in golden showers. They reported only something to the effect of Obama and Trump got a memo from intelligence that "people are saying" that Russia has some dirt on Trump. Which was a true statement - Obama and Trump did receive such a report. They never mentioned golden showers or claimed that anything that was contained in the reports to Obama/Trump was true. So... I'm not sure what there is to be angry about as re: CNN. Maybe I'm wrong. I didn't read CNN's reporting at the time.
By contrast to buzzfeed, I do occasionally still read the OD here, although much less than in years past. And Jackel's "I know everything and I'll say outrageous shit as though it's god's own truth with no support" shtick still annoys me. So, he can bear the brunt of my anger.
As to your question - I have no idea what had greater influence. I don't know the extent of what Russia did and anyone who hasn't seen the classified briefing is just guessing (and perhaps that's true even of those who have seen the classified briefing, but that's neither here nor there). Which is why I'd never claim that Trump's win is in any way de-legitimized by Russia's actions. Anyone who says that is, IMO, full of shit, because they likely don't know the extent of Trump's involvement and, even if they did, how is it anything other than uninformed speculation to claim to know how much that involvement influenced voters in the swing states?
An incomplete list of things I think it's silly to speculate about:
Whether Bernie would have beat Hillary if the DNC hadn't worked against him Whether Bernie would have beat Trump if Bernie had won the D's nomination Whether Comey cost Hillary the election Whether Russia cost Hillary the election Whether Jackel would be employed today if Sporty hadn't physically held him down and prevented him from going to two separate job interviews
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 11:16:27 GMT -5
When you're deaf, have no job, no money, no car, and no sneakers, you have to resort to being a faux internet know-it-all. What a shitty life.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Jan 13, 2017 11:30:51 GMT -5
Well, I don't read buzzfeed so I don't much give a shit what they post. Do people consider it a credible news source? I was under the impression it was a click-bait website. No? Click-bait gonna click-bait. My understanding was CNN didn't report that Trump was involved in golden showers. They reported only something to the effect of Obama and Trump got a memo from intelligence that "people are saying" that Russia has some dirt on Trump. Which was a true statement - Obama and Trump did receive such a report. They never mentioned golden showers or claimed that anything that was contained in the reports to Obama/Trump was true. So... I'm not sure what there is to be angry about as re: CNN. Maybe I'm wrong. I didn't read CNN's reporting at the time. By contrast to buzzfeed, I do occasionally still read the OD here, although much less than in years past. And Jackel's "I know everything and I'll say outrageous shit as though it's god's own truth with no support" shtick still annoys me. So, he can bear the brunt of my anger. As to your question - I have no idea what had greater influence. I don't know the extent of what Russia did and anyone who hasn't seen the classified briefing is just guessing (and perhaps that's true even of those who have seen the classified briefing, but that's neither here nor there). Which is why I'd never claim that Trump's win is in any way de-legitimized by Russia's actions. Anyone who says that is, IMO, full of shit, because they likely don't know the extent of Trump's involvement and, even if they did, how is it anything other than uninformed speculation to claim to know how much that involvement influenced voters in the swing states? An incomplete list of things I think it's silly to speculate about: Whether Bernie would have beat Hillary if the DNC hadn't worked against him Whether Bernie would have beat Trump if Bernie had won the D's nomination Whether Comey cost Hillary the election Whether Russia cost Hillary the election Whether Jackel would be employed today if Sporty hadn't physically held him down and prevented him from going to two separate job interviews I think CNN is less than steller in how they vet their Trump stories and clearly has a double standard of how the report. People calling them out have a right to do it and you would think CNN would learn. Attacking Trump keeps backfiring yet they continue to double down, and I enjoy the meltdown because I think it's only going to get worse for them. However, after reading about this a little bit I think a lot of this "Trump Golden Shower" nonsense falls mostly on the CIA and whatever other intelligence agencies didn't vet it properly themselves. WTF are they thinking? Fox also has a clear double standard and has a bias, but they don't outright lie even if their editorial leans towards bashing liberals. That's the difference I see when I hear colleagues dismiss CNN mistakes/lies as tit for tat "because Fox does it against Obama". Their is a difference between an opinion on say how Obamacare treats us all (CNN it's fine, FOX its the worst thing ever) vs if Trump was getting a fucking golden shower from a russian hooker. Or if a Trump staffer was actually the one who went overseas when in fact, it was a different guy with the same name. Some things you need to get straight before airing and CNN is failing.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jan 13, 2017 12:19:32 GMT -5
I know a lot more about pop culture (what's going on, going viral, being discussed and in what context) than I do about network news as I've largely gotten out of that loop over the last year, and could not be happier about it. I've never been on 4chan or buzzfeed or vox or gawker or whatthefuckever in my life, but I can confirm that there's an interesting and undeniable shift in skepticism from the past admin to the current. Things that were legit issues were labeled as tinfoil hokey and dismissed outright as ravings from paranoid racists (fast and furious, benghazi, iran deal, drones, surveillance, irs targeting, on and on . . . real issues) and got little or no serious, and certainly no aggressive media handling. Now Trump gets bonafide National Inquirer tabloid alien baby golden shower circus rumor mill and it's IMMEDIATELY at the forefront of the national discussion and being pushed, repeated, shared, and accepted, EAGERLY, as true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 16:21:58 GMT -5
Well, I don't read buzzfeed so I don't much give a shit what they post. Do people consider it a credible news source? I was under the impression it was a click-bait website. No? Click-bait gonna click-bait. My understanding was CNN didn't report that Trump was involved in golden showers. They reported only something to the effect of Obama and Trump got a memo from intelligence that "people are saying" that Russia has some dirt on Trump. Which was a true statement - Obama and Trump did receive such a report. They never mentioned golden showers or claimed that anything that was contained in the reports to Obama/Trump was true. So... I'm not sure what there is to be angry about as re: CNN. Maybe I'm wrong. I didn't read CNN's reporting at the time. By contrast to buzzfeed, I do occasionally still read the OD here, although much less than in years past. And Jackel's "I know everything and I'll say outrageous shit as though it's god's own truth with no support" shtick still annoys me. So, he can bear the brunt of my anger. As to your question - I have no idea what had greater influence. I don't know the extent of what Russia did and anyone who hasn't seen the classified briefing is just guessing (and perhaps that's true even of those who have seen the classified briefing, but that's neither here nor there). Which is why I'd never claim that Trump's win is in any way de-legitimized by Russia's actions. Anyone who says that is, IMO, full of shit, because they likely don't know the extent of Trump's involvement and, even if they did, how is it anything other than uninformed speculation to claim to know how much that involvement influenced voters in the swing states? An incomplete list of things I think it's silly to speculate about: Whether Bernie would have beat Hillary if the DNC hadn't worked against him Whether Bernie would have beat Trump if Bernie had won the D's nomination Whether Comey cost Hillary the election Whether Russia cost Hillary the election Whether Jackel would be employed today if Sporty hadn't physically held him down and prevented him from going to two separate job interviews CNN reported and ran with the "fact" that Russia had some major shit on Trump and he was disqualified to be President because he could be blackmailed. So regardless of the details or whether he did get pissed on by a whore, one of the top 5 news agencies in the US has no problem publishing stories aimed to disqualify our president. That is a major problem for them and will not serve our country well at all. In reference to whether Russia or the media bias internally had a greater affect, the major difference you are missing is "Russia" simply leaked the truth... the media kept making up lies to swing voter influence. I would say the media is more dishonest than "Russia".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 16:58:36 GMT -5
Just an FYI for James:
Buzzfeed owns NBCNews.
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Jan 14, 2017 15:23:42 GMT -5
Well, I checked out buzzfeed. Here are examples from the top five stories on their page:
15 Posts About Black Hair Salons That Are Too Damn Real
What Percentage Visual Thinker Are You?
14 Things You'll Find Hilarious If You're 14 Years Old
(We are all 14 years old.)
My assumption that Buzzfeed is a clickbait site seems to have been proven true. Getting upset about their lack of journalistic integrity seems a bit like getting pissed if the National Enquirer ran with the golden shower story. You're not wrong. But...
Kyle, can you link me to what CNN story ran about the dossier pre Trump's press conference? I'd like to read it for myself. All I've read are summaries of it.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jan 15, 2017 11:31:48 GMT -5
Well . . . so? What was the #1 hilarious thing? I'm dying over here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2017 12:25:15 GMT -5
Well, I checked out buzzfeed. Here are examples from the top five stories on their page: 15 Posts About Black Hair Salons That Are Too Damn Real What Percentage Visual Thinker Are You? 14 Things You'll Find Hilarious If You're 14 Years Old (We are all 14 years old.)My assumption that Buzzfeed is a clickbait site seems to have been proven true. Getting upset about their lack of journalistic integrity seems a bit like getting pissed if the National Enquirer ran with the golden shower story. You're not wrong. But... Kyle, can you link me to what CNN story ran about the dossier pre Trump's press conference? I'd like to read it for myself. All I've read are summaries of it. Ok James, I know you're the smartest black guy in here, so I believe you could follow my line of thinking here. Buzzfeed is seen as a "not credible news source". They own NBCNews and NBC itself owns (somewhere around) 30% of Buzzfeed. The mainstream media has been railing against, and oftentimes been tremendously unfair towards Trump since he got into the election. Almost like some of these MSM organizations have a personal grudge against him. Rumors of "the dossier" start flying around. No credible MSM site will release the info in its entirety, largely due to the things within it that "did not add up". But these MSM guys really, really, really want to keep right on trying to discredit Trump in any way they possibly can. So.....they have their "not credible news source" release the information because they know Buzzfeed have zero journalistic integrity to preserve in the first place, so releasing fake information won't harm their "reputation" in the least bit. They also know that there are millions of dumbfounded dipshits in this country who would eat that information up and call it Gospel without ever bothering to see if they could find the same information on a more credible site. As such, to me it just looks like more of the MSM trying anything they can to smear Trump further. Releasing a memo that has zero evidence to back anything in it up would fall into that vein pretty easily. Especially when one considers that there is actually NO POSSIBLE WAY Trump could have gotten to Moscow undetected. The guy travels in his own private 747 and every flight it makes is recorded with the destination listed, and a radar signature that can be seen by any air traffic controller on duty in the world. Trump going to Moscow would have been news no matter how much he tried to hide it. And the media to me are clearly working an agenda that I don't fully understand, nor do I really want to, because it's probably just more stupid liberal crap.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jan 15, 2017 22:42:13 GMT -5
I find it amusing that the same people absolutely rabid about Bush in Iraq didn't bother to notice Obama spent every day of his 8 year reign at war, pushing to expand war, keeping GitMo open, and drone raping the entire continent.
Also amusing that those same folks now coming out in a rash over alleged Russian meddling didn't bother to notice the DNC rigging debates, schedules, TV time, superdelegates, funding, and rampant media collusion for Clinton.
You don't care about war.
You don't care about meddling.
You care about winning and being in power. Let's at least quit bullshitting.
|
|
|
Post by rearnakedmolerat on Jan 16, 2017 9:43:40 GMT -5
Now Trump gets bonafide National Inquirer tabloid alien baby golden shower circus rumor mill and it's IMMEDIATELY at the forefront of the national discussion and being pushed, repeated, shared, and accepted, EAGERLY, as true. Can you provide examples in the msm of any of it being "accepted eagerly as true"? I'm sure there's plenty I haven't seen, but what I have seen in typical liberal news media is a lot of "Trump and Obama were briefed on some sort of dossier that allegedly has bad shit on Trump. But we've no way of verifying its contents as true so we won't print what was in it." And even BuzzFeed published the contents with a disclaimer that they couldn't verify its veracity. So, outside of crackpot blogs or something, I'm seeing none of this eager acceptance. By all means, show me I'm wrong. Maybe there is, but does the existence of all sorts of examples of just the opposite of eager acceptance attenuate your view at all? One thing we seem to be in agreement on though: it would be incredibly irresponsible for someone to publish bullshit rumours with no credible basis in fact designed expressly to tarnish the legitimacy of the president. I mean, you'd have to be a mendacious, untrustworthy, con artist piece of shit to do something like that, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 9:54:30 GMT -5
Now Trump gets bonafide National Inquirer tabloid alien baby golden shower circus rumor mill and it's IMMEDIATELY at the forefront of the national discussion and being pushed, repeated, shared, and accepted, EAGERLY, as true. Can you provide examples in the msm of any of it being "accepted eagerly as true"? I'm sure there's plenty I haven't seen, but what I have seen in typical liberal news media is a lot of "Trump and Obama were briefed on some sort of dossier that allegedly has bad shit on Trump. But we've no way of verifying its contents as true so we won't print what was in it." And even BuzzFeed published the contents with a disclaimer that they couldn't verify its veracity. So, outside of crackpot blogs or something, I'm seeing none of this eager acceptance. By all means, show me I'm wrong. Maybe there is, but does the existence of all sorts of examples of just the opposite of eager acceptance attenuate your view at all? One thing we seem to be in agreement on though: it would be incredibly irresponsible for someone to publish bullshit rumours with no credible basis in fact designed expressly to tarnish the legitimacy of the president. I mean, you'd have to be a mendacious, untrustworthy, con artist piece of shit to do something like that, right? Huff post had 2 articles up about it and a "what a golden shower really is" article, trying to be cute. This was their front page the day this info came out.
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Jan 16, 2017 10:59:34 GMT -5
Now Trump gets bonafide National Inquirer tabloid alien baby golden shower circus rumor mill and it's IMMEDIATELY at the forefront of the national discussion and being pushed, repeated, shared, and accepted, EAGERLY, as true. Can you provide examples in the msm of any of it being "accepted eagerly as true"? I'm sure there's plenty I haven't seen, but what I have seen in typical liberal news media is a lot of "Trump and Obama were briefed on some sort of dossier that allegedly has bad shit on Trump. But we've no way of verifying its contents as true so we won't print what was in it." And even BuzzFeed published the contents with a disclaimer that they couldn't verify its veracity. So, outside of crackpot blogs or something, I'm seeing none of this eager acceptance. By all means, show me I'm wrong. Maybe there is, but does the existence of all sorts of examples of just the opposite of eager acceptance attenuate your view at all? One thing we seem to be in agreement on though: it would be incredibly irresponsible for someone to publish bullshit rumours with no credible basis in fact designed expressly to tarnish the legitimacy of the president. I mean, you'd have to be a mendacious, untrustworthy, con artist piece of shit to do something like that, right?Careful Baph...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 14:15:35 GMT -5
Well, I checked out buzzfeed. Here are examples from the top five stories on their page: 15 Posts About Black Hair Salons That Are Too Damn Real What Percentage Visual Thinker Are You? 14 Things You'll Find Hilarious If You're 14 Years Old (We are all 14 years old.)My assumption that Buzzfeed is a clickbait site seems to have been proven true. Getting upset about their lack of journalistic integrity seems a bit like getting pissed if the National Enquirer ran with the golden shower story. You're not wrong. But... Kyle, can you link me to what CNN story ran about the dossier pre Trump's press conference? I'd like to read it for myself. All I've read are summaries of it. Not sure what was written, but what was being reported on CNN for 2-3 days straight was that the dossier was fact and they had on multiple talking heads all bringing up future impeachment and how the inauguration should be held up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 14:19:35 GMT -5
^And a pretty obvious trap that the liberal RNR laid.
Trump's birther claims were a private citizen running his mouth. The media has specific ethical requirements they need to follow which hold them to a far higher standard than a private citizen.
It's fine if one individual person is a mendacious, untrustworthy, con artist piece of shit. It's a different situation entirely if a news organization has those adjectives attached to them.
It's also funny that we elected a guy that liberal retards who talk about white privilege bullshit would describe with the adjectives you use. Like your fat buddy Micheal Moore said, it was the ultimate fuck you. And it was aimed square at people like you, RNR. So suck it. Maybe go cry with the rest of the liberals about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 14:54:44 GMT -5
I had to look up "mendacious"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 15:53:28 GMT -5
But his avatar is positively subliminal.
(This is where he -- or she? -- will come on here to crow how only Neanderthals would think so. 'Cuz he/she is so darn SMART, y'know?)
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jan 17, 2017 0:34:14 GMT -5
Can you provide examples in the msm of any of it being "accepted eagerly as true"? I'm sure there's plenty I haven't seen, but what I have seen in typical liberal news media is a lot of "Trump and Obama were briefed on some sort of dossier that allegedly has bad shit on Trump. But we've no way of verifying its contents as true so we won't print what was in it." And even BuzzFeed published the contents with a disclaimer that they couldn't verify its veracity. So, outside of crackpot blogs or something, I'm seeing none of this eager acceptance. By all means, show me I'm wrong. Maybe there is, but does the existence of all sorts of examples of just the opposite of eager acceptance attenuate your view at all? One thing we seem to be in agreement on though: it would be incredibly irresponsible for someone to publish bullshit rumours with no credible basis in fact designed expressly to tarnish the legitimacy of the president. I mean, you'd have to be a mendacious, untrustworthy, con artist piece of shit to do something like that, right?Careful Baph... The kind of trap where you don't quote the first part of my post in which I specifically say I haven't followed network news for a year and that I've never been on these click bait/gossip blogs at all, but I can speak to pop culture and social media trends? That kind? Or is it more the sort of trap where an indictment of the fucking banana republic DNC and the hack, shill media somehow equates to a defense of Trump's jerk-off, self-indulgent Twitter feed? Just want to be sure about which sort of jelly-dick "trap" I'm mowing over in forthcoming post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 7:19:00 GMT -5
All of the above
|
|
|
Post by rearnakedmolerat on Jan 17, 2017 9:06:19 GMT -5
Careful Baph... The kind of trap where you don't quote the first part of my post in which I specifically say I haven't followed network news for a year and that I've never been on these click bait/gossip blogs at all, but I can speak to pop culture and social media trends? That kind? Or is it more the sort of trap where an indictment of the fucking banana republic DNC and the hack, shill media somehow equates to a defense of Trump's jerk-off, self-indulgent Twitter feed? Just want to be sure about which sort of jelly-dick "trap" I'm mowing over in forthcoming post. Settle down there. No, it's not a fucking trap for anyone with half a brain anyway. It should be pretty straightforward to say that promoting unverified rumors with no basis in fact is bad, regardless of who is doing it. I would think that it's particularly bad when the god damn future President is doing it, but apparently that's a bridge too far around here. From the perspective of a supposed libertarian, I don't much see the point of bitching about...wait who, exactly are you bitching about? For someone who spends so much of his time on here complaining about the media, I didn't think it a stretch to think you meant "the media" in some big company type way. Sure, you said you don't follow network news. I did not take that as meaning you don't *read* news. Especially,when you claim that the shit about Trump is "IMMEDIATELY at the forefront of the national discussion". What do you mean by "national discussion" then, if not some sort of major media discussion? Why is "can you provide evidence of your claims?" such a difficult and apparently rage-inducing question?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 10:16:38 GMT -5
Rnmr is a soft beta, I can always tell the soft fuckers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 11:11:30 GMT -5
It's far worse when a news organization does it. FAR FAR FAR FAR worse. I'd think anyone with even 1/4 a brain would grasp the difference. And you got evidence, just not from Baph, who most likely doesn't have the time to read Huff Post. But I make it a habit to read the dumb shit liberals call news, so I'll help my fellow American demonstrate that the Canadian needs to STFU. You want evidence, you want someone to show you that you're wrong........someone already did and his name is Valetudo. But I'll provide you with actual pictures, as that's probably more your speed anyway, you insufferable prick. Check the glee with which The Cut wrote about it. The Cut pulls in about .5M a day in views. Next up we have the bastion of liberality, the home page of just about every libtard I know: Basically demonstrating how fucked up they are in their liberalness. And finally, that blog otherwise knows as (fucking) NEWSWEEK Take a look at that bottom line in this one. "..a high-ranking Obama administration diplomat....." But yeah man. It's only crackpot blogs and little dark corners of the internet where this shit is being reported as if it is true.....STFU and use google yourself next time.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Jan 17, 2017 12:05:27 GMT -5
The frustrating thing with discussing ANYTHING with rnmr, mih, etc, is the convenient lie tactics. It's the liberal fall back to be disingenuous so they don't have to answer questions and don't have to admit they are wrong.
How many fucking years did multiple members of the OD argue about the radically biased new media coddling Obama after they trashed Bush? Liberals can't admit it but now their is no possible way to deny it. We have fucking proof! CNN was exposed. Every major news station outside of FOX was so staunchly biased and lying, and colluding with team Hillary, the entire world saw it. We have the emails, the dinner invites, the editing of stories and Hillary vetting them, the proof questions were provided in advance. These are facts so instead of confronting them, liberals will pretend they don't have to respond.
So either rnmr can man up (impossible both literally and figuratively) and admit he was wrong about media bias, or he can move the goal posts and say it happens on both sides and lie. He chooses to lie. Is anyone surprised?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 13:46:16 GMT -5
This is just a silly and transparent attempt to make (or create) a "nuanced" argument where none is even remotely possible. Recall John (Great Rug) Kerry's flip-flop excuses for his pitiful about- faces on various policy positions as the 2004 Dem presidential candidate for reference.
Then, enjoy another giggle at RNMR's expense, even though you (and I) already are. Kerry, RNMR, and other disingenuous whining liberals just have this effect on me. I can't help myself. Their attempts at "discussion" are just too juvenile.
And just WHO is talking about "rage" here, other than beta-boy?
Bemused annoyance is more like it...
|
|