Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 183

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN16Y1H6

A Russian bank under U.S. economic sanctions over Russia’s incursion into Ukraine disclosed on Monday that its executives had met Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and a top White House adviser, during the 2016 election campaign.

Kushner, 36, married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump, has agreed to testify to a Senate committee investigating whether Russia tried to interfere in the election.

Allegations by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian actors were behind hacking of senior Democratic Party operatives and spreading disinformation linger over Trump’s young presidency. Democrats charge the Russians wanted to tilt the election toward the Republican, a claim dismissed by Trump. Russia denies the allegations.

But there has been no doubt that the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak, developed contacts among the Trump team. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign on Feb. 13 after revelations that he had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with Kislyak and misled Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations.

This article seems to be a mish-mash of supposition and some facts, and it’s Reuters. I’ve been watching the C-span coverage of the hearings and the daily Press briefings mostly. Counterpropa.com is also a very fair on-line publication.

Ok.

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN16Y1H6

A Russian bank under U.S. economic sanctions over Russia’s incursion into Ukraine disclosed on Monday that its executives had met Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and a top White House adviser, during the 2016 election campaign.

Kushner, 36, married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump, has agreed to testify to a Senate committee investigating whether Russia tried to interfere in the election.

Allegations by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian actors were behind hacking of senior Democratic Party operatives and spreading disinformation linger over Trump’s young presidency. Democrats charge the Russians wanted to tilt the election toward the Republican, a claim dismissed by Trump. Russia denies the allegations.

But there has been no doubt that the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak, developed contacts among the Trump team. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign on Feb. 13 after revelations that he had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with Kislyak and misled Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations.

This article seems to be a mish-mash of supposition and some facts, and it’s Reuters. I’ve been watching the C-span coverage of the hearings and the daily Press briefings mostly. Counterpropa.com is also a very fair on-line publication.

Ok.

Come on now, I was fair, at least I didn’t trash it, LOL.

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN16Y1H6

A Russian bank under U.S. economic sanctions over Russia’s incursion into Ukraine disclosed on Monday that its executives had met Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and a top White House adviser, during the 2016 election campaign.

Kushner, 36, married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump, has agreed to testify to a Senate committee investigating whether Russia tried to interfere in the election.

Allegations by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian actors were behind hacking of senior Democratic Party operatives and spreading disinformation linger over Trump’s young presidency. Democrats charge the Russians wanted to tilt the election toward the Republican, a claim dismissed by Trump. Russia denies the allegations.

But there has been no doubt that the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak, developed contacts among the Trump team. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign on Feb. 13 after revelations that he had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with Kislyak and misled Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations.

This article seems to be a mish-mash of supposition and some facts, and it’s Reuters. I’ve been watching the C-span coverage of the hearings and the daily Press briefings mostly. Couterpropa.com is also a very fair on-line publication.

I have to wonder why they went through all the trouble of hiding both their real location and owner. That’s not the sort of thing you do on accident when your web admin sets up your DNS name wrong. It takes a real professional effort to conceal it.

H.A. Goodman is the guy who I believe runs and owns the site.

Lol.

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN16Y1H6

A Russian bank under U.S. economic sanctions over Russia’s incursion into Ukraine disclosed on Monday that its executives had met Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and a top White House adviser, during the 2016 election campaign.

Kushner, 36, married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump, has agreed to testify to a Senate committee investigating whether Russia tried to interfere in the election.

Allegations by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian actors were behind hacking of senior Democratic Party operatives and spreading disinformation linger over Trump’s young presidency. Democrats charge the Russians wanted to tilt the election toward the Republican, a claim dismissed by Trump. Russia denies the allegations.

But there has been no doubt that the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak, developed contacts among the Trump team. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign on Feb. 13 after revelations that he had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with Kislyak and misled Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations.

This article seems to be a mish-mash of supposition and some facts, and it’s Reuters. I’ve been watching the C-span coverage of the hearings and the daily Press briefings mostly. Counterpropa.com is also a very fair on-line publication.

Ok.

Come on now, I was fair, at least I didn’t trash it, LOL.

“A mish-mash of supposition and some facts” isn’t trashing it?

Ok.

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN16Y1H6

A Russian bank under U.S. economic sanctions over Russia’s incursion into Ukraine disclosed on Monday that its executives had met Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and a top White House adviser, during the 2016 election campaign.

Kushner, 36, married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump, has agreed to testify to a Senate committee investigating whether Russia tried to interfere in the election.

Allegations by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian actors were behind hacking of senior Democratic Party operatives and spreading disinformation linger over Trump’s young presidency. Democrats charge the Russians wanted to tilt the election toward the Republican, a claim dismissed by Trump. Russia denies the allegations.

But there has been no doubt that the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak, developed contacts among the Trump team. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign on Feb. 13 after revelations that he had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with Kislyak and misled Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations.

This article seems to be a mish-mash of supposition and some facts, and it’s Reuters. I’ve been watching the C-span coverage of the hearings and the daily Press briefings mostly. Counterpropa.com is also a very fair on-line publication.

Ok.

Come on now, I was fair, at least I didn’t trash it, LOL.

“A mish-mash of supposition and some facts” isn’t trashing it?

Ok.

Nope. I could have said it was all trash and fake. Look, I’m trying so at least give me credit for doing so.

Which parts are supposition?

Reuters cannot even be taken seriously anymore, unfortunately. Considering they were colluding with the Clinton campaign in the primary.

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Which parts are supposition?

I read the whole thing top to bottom twice in an attempt to figure that out. Everything is either uncontroversial or has well-documented sourcing.

The only thing I can see setting off anyone is this:

Allegations by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian actors were behind hacking of senior Democratic Party operatives and spreading disinformation linger over Trump’s young presidency. Democrats charge the Russians wanted to tilt the election toward the Republican, a claim dismissed by Trump. Russia denies the allegations.

It’s treated like a he-said, she-said. You’ve got unnamed intelligence agencies and Democrats on one side, and Trump and the Russians on the other. Equally weighted, fair and balanced. They didn’t name all 17 of the intelligence agencies, to avoid tipping the field. Reuters is usually pretty conservative, but this is only a slight pro-Trump tilt.

That would be it. The DNC still has not given it’s servers to the FBI to examine (and they asked) so I am unsure as to how they can actually keep making the claim. There is no fool proof evidence from anyone at this juncture that can accurately prove or disprove that Trump is a liar and that the Russians lost Clinton the election. None.

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Which parts are supposition?

I read the whole thing top to bottom twice in an attempt to figure that out. Everything is either uncontroversial or has well-documented sourcing.

The only thing I can see setting off anyone is this:

Allegations by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian actors were behind hacking of senior Democratic Party operatives and spreading disinformation linger over Trump’s young presidency. Democrats charge the Russians wanted to tilt the election toward the Republican, a claim dismissed by Trump. Russia denies the allegations.

It’s treated like a he-said, she-said. You’ve got unnamed intelligence agencies and Democrats on one side, and Trump and the Russians on the other. Equally weighted, fair and balanced. They didn’t name all 17 of the intelligence agencies, to avoid tipping the field. Reuters is usually pretty conservative, but this is only a slight pro-Trump tilt.

That would be it. The DNC still has not given it’s servers to the FBI to examine (and they asked) so I am unsure as to how they can actually keep making the claim. There is no fool proof evidence from anyone at this juncture that can accurately prove or disprove that Trump is a liar and that the Russians lost Clinton the election. None.

So you found one thing in that entire (rather long) article, and it’s something that gives the viewpoint of both (all three, including Russia) sides, and that means the article is a mish-mash of supposition and fact?

What?

This is why I should know better. I really should go back to ignoring you 100% of the time, it would be best for both of us I’m sure.

Alderaan said:

Reuters cannot even be taken seriously anymore, unfortunately. Considering they were colluding with the Clinton campaign in the primary.

What?

CatBus said:

We get the other anti-Clinton Reuters out here, I wish they’d use different names to avoid confusing people.

Come on don’t play naive. On the night before the last primaries, despite there not having been any votes in weeks, they suddenly create a “BREAKING NEWS STORY” that Hillary had enough delegates to win the nomination.

Of course, she already had the same number of delegates weeks earlier. Or on the contrary, none of the superdelegates had voted yet or were bound to vote for anyone yet.

But the point was they were colluding with the Clinton campaign, who had already wrapped up the nomination, to save her any possible embarrassment of losing California the next day. They were behaving just like the New York Times, The L.A. Times, NBC, CNN, and many other liberal outlets, which is a shame, because an organization like Reuters should just stick to the facts.

So how is any of that relevant to what I posted?

OK I’m going to embarrass myself here and mea culpa if it was the AP who pulled that stunt, although it may have been both. I don’t remember at this point anymore.

TV’s Frink said:

So how is any of that relevant to what I posted?

The conversation was about media credibility, and then I was replying to CatBus.

Even if it was Reuters, it’s still not relevant.

Just because Donna Brazile worked at CNN doesn’t mean that every single CNN article is automatically trash.

Alderaan said:

TV’s Frink said:

So how is any of that relevant to what I posted?

The conversation was about media credibility, and then I was replying to CatBus.

You followed up CatBus’ breakdown of a specific Reuters article with “they can’t be taken seriously” so I’m not sure what you expected.

Well despite the partisan slant of most media outlets in the U.S., up until recently you could count on wire services to stay above the editorial fray and stick straight to reporting breaking news stories with factual accuracy. I was simply referring to them losing that prestigious credibility by colluding with a political campaign.

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Which parts are supposition?

I read the whole thing top to bottom twice in an attempt to figure that out. Everything is either uncontroversial or has well-documented sourcing.

The only thing I can see setting off anyone is this:

Allegations by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian actors were behind hacking of senior Democratic Party operatives and spreading disinformation linger over Trump’s young presidency. Democrats charge the Russians wanted to tilt the election toward the Republican, a claim dismissed by Trump. Russia denies the allegations.

It’s treated like a he-said, she-said. You’ve got unnamed intelligence agencies and Democrats on one side, and Trump and the Russians on the other. Equally weighted, fair and balanced. They didn’t name all 17 of the intelligence agencies, to avoid tipping the field. Reuters is usually pretty conservative, but this is only a slight pro-Trump tilt.

That would be it. The DNC still has not given it’s servers to the FBI to examine (and they asked) so I am unsure as to how they can actually keep making the claim. There is no fool proof evidence from anyone at this juncture that can accurately prove or disprove that Trump is a liar and that the Russians lost Clinton the election. None.

So you found one thing in that entire (rather long) article, and it’s something that gives the viewpoint of both (all three, including Russia) sides, and that means the article is a mish-mash of supposition and fact?

What?

This is why I should know better. I really should go back to ignoring you 100% of the time, it would be best for both of us I’m sure.

Why can’t you ever just politely accept the fact that not everyone shares your views and opinions and that it is okay for them to do so? This is why we have fought so much. You never want to be wrong, ever, and I can’t imagine you’re that omnipotent since you have a family.

😦

Well I’m going to disagree with the premise of your post. The media didn’t play along because it loves a horse race (although yes that was part of it)–the media knew the Clinton campaign and the DNC were simply playing along with Bernie because:

1. they wanted to keep Hillary in the news until the convention
2. they wanted to use Bernie as a whip to round up voters for her

Yes, the race was over before June '16. And the breaking news story the night before may or may not have had any impact on the outcome of those final primaries. But that’s beside the point really. It’s ridiculous and perhaps illegal for a wire service to be colluding with a political campaign to try and affect the outcome of an election.

oojason said:

I’d recommend The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk) as a decent alternative source to the BBC (and the BBC News’ kowtowing down to the Conservative Party in recent years - likely for fear of cuts to it’s licence fee by them).

I’m just an American, so it’s hard for me to comment on the British press, but I agree about the Guardian. I started reading Glenn Greenwald there (and although he left) I try to never miss anything he writes.