DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => New Political and Religious Forum => Topic started by: cramx3 on January 11, 2017, 09:45:14 AM

Title: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: cramx3 on January 11, 2017, 09:45:14 AM
Well since PR is open and I believe Chino was hinting at this in the discussion thread so figured it's best to start a thread on this.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.gg29EKmk7#.bsn8xm9d3 (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.gg29EKmk7#.bsn8xm9d3)

I don't even know what to believe anymore honestly, I feel like things like this show how poor journalism has become.
Title: Re: I have just violated forum rule #1--please ban me Trolling
Post by: Stadler on January 11, 2017, 10:25:28 AM
Well since PR is open and I believe Chino was hinting at this in the discussion thread so figured it's best to start a thread on this.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.gg29EKmk7#.bsn8xm9d3 (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.gg29EKmk7#.bsn8xm9d3)

I don't even know what to believe anymore honestly, I feel like things like this show how poor journalism has become.

I'm no spy, but that report seems really contrived.   The repeated use of "perverted", the repeated use of "Kremlin", the colloquialisms ("bugged"; the term is "sigops", or "signal operations").    It also is very sloppy how it conflates several different avenues of spycraft into one big "RUSSIA!"    Collecting info on Trump - "perverted" or otherwise - is very different than cultivating relationships with him, and are not even related in terms of the mechanics of the operation.   
Title: Re: I have just violated forum rule #1--please ban me Trolling
Post by: Chino on January 11, 2017, 10:28:33 AM
Yeah, I have absolutely no clue what to make of this. This might be the most shittastic thing to happen so far regarding Trump. Both sides are failing horribly on this matter. On one hand, while media outlets are repeatedly stating this is unverified, they sure are pushing it hard, and on the opposing hand, the best defense has been "see, there's this one guy on I have just violated forum rule #1--please ban me who said he was responsible, FAKE NEWS!". I don't think anyone knows what the fuck is going on at this point.

One thing I know for certain though is that Trump couldn't be handling this worse than he his. His tweets are not cutting it.

@RealDonaldTrump - "Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!" I can think of an incredibly easy way for him to prove that wrong, and it begins with 'tax' and ends with 'returns'.

@RealDonaldTrump - "Russia just said the unverified report paid for by political opponents is "A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FABRICATION, UTTER NONSENSE." Very unfair!" I'm not saying I believe this report in any capacity, but let's pretend for a second it is true. If Russia is in fact blackmailing our president elect and holding crippling info over his head, are we really supposed to believe that they'd come out and admit to it? Would Putin really come out and say "Damn, US. You guys are good. You got me. My team has been working in collusion with Trump's team in an attempt to influence your election"?

And the thing is, as crazy as it sounds that Trump would hire a bunch of hookers to piss on a bed Obama slept on, given the way he's acted and led his life up until this point, it's really not that hard to imagine. When the president elect says "Get even with people. If they screw you screw them back ten times as hard. I really believe that", he comes off as petty. He comes off like a person who not only has to feel victorious, but do so in such a way that trumps all others. It's like he's got this fascination with being the greatest alpha male to have ever lived, regardless what he needs to do to feel that way.
Title: Re: I have just violated forum rule #1--please ban me Trolling
Post by: cramx3 on January 11, 2017, 10:37:52 AM
My first read of that was "well this is actually plausible" given the nature of Trump.

But what I find troubling is that people hate Trump so much that they will run with these reports most likely because they want them to be true, without caring to prove it to be true.  It's amazing that a I have just violated forum rule #1--please ban me joke could end up in the president's hands and taken seriously.  Something is so terribly wrong with our country  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Buzzfeed trolling Trump
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2017, 10:39:11 AM
The fact is, as long as he continues to behave like the idiot man-child he is, people will continue to troll him. I honestly can't fathom how people aren't riling him up three times daily just for the lulz. This is a non-event. The media has to report it because of the potential ramifications and then it blows over because it's mostly likely complete nonsense. This sort of thing happens all the time.  As long as he's going to fulfill his base need to always get in the last word these sorts of things will always be a problem or him.
Title: Re: I have just violated forum rule #1--please ban me Trolling
Post by: cramx3 on January 11, 2017, 10:42:16 AM
The fact is, as long as he continues to behave like the idiot man-child he is, people will continue to troll him. I honestly can't fathom how people aren't riling him up three times daily just for the lulz. This is a non-event. The media has to report it because of the potential ramifications and then it blows over because it's mostly likely complete nonsense. This sort of thing happens all the time.  As long as he's going to fulfill his base need to always get in the last word these sorts of things will always be a problem or him.

But they didn't troll Trump, they trolled the Rick Wilson, although I agree with what you are saying.  Trump's tweets alone leave plenty of avenues open for trolling and whatnot.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed trolling Trump
Post by: bosk1 on January 11, 2017, 10:43:20 AM
Okay, here's the issue.  That site violates forum rules and should not be mentioned here at all.  Dropping the name in a thread as typically been grounds for an immediate ban (hence the forum autocorrect highlighting and changing it in the post titles).  Given that P/R is supposed to be more mature, grown-up discussion, and since the name is being explicitly mentioned in the news in connection with the story, I will allow it being used for that limited purpose in the discussion.  I edited it out of the thread titles.  Please keep it that way.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed trolling Trump
Post by: bosk1 on January 11, 2017, 10:44:57 AM
The fact is, as long as he continues to behave like the idiot man-child he is, people will continue to troll him. I honestly can't fathom how people aren't riling him up three times daily just for the lulz. This is a non-event. The media has to report it because of the potential ramifications and then it blows over because it's mostly likely complete nonsense. This sort of thing happens all the time.  As long as he's going to fulfill his base need to always get in the last word these sorts of things will always be a problem or him.

But they didn't troll Trump, they trolled the Rick Wilson, although I agree with what you are saying.  Trump's tweets alone leave plenty of avenues open for trolling and whatnot.

Correct...which I suppose makes my edited thread title misleading as well.  Feel free to change it.  Just be mindful of my prior post on the subject.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed trolling Trump
Post by: cramx3 on January 11, 2017, 10:46:06 AM
Okay, here's the issue.  That site violates forum rules and should not be mentioned here at all.  Dropping the name in a thread as typically been grounds for an immediate ban (hence the forum autocorrect highlighting and changing it in the post titles).  Given that P/R is supposed to be more mature, grown-up discussion, and since the name is being explicitly mentioned in the news in connection with the story, I will allow it being used for that limited purpose in the discussion.  I edited it out of the thread titles.  Please keep it that way.

Ah, I thought that title was due to the PR re-opening.  Totally wasn't trying to bring attention to that site, just that it is part of the news story relating to the political news.  I apologize and sadly that is poor timing given the re-opening of the section.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Chino on January 11, 2017, 11:10:11 AM
The twitter account of the poster from the site that must not be named has gone offline/been deleted.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 11, 2017, 11:13:52 AM
What's the difference between a chickpea and a garbanzo bean?

Trump's never had a garbanzo bean on his face.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: bosk1 on January 11, 2017, 11:18:54 AM
The "story" is so obviously fake that it's hard to fathom anyone who understands how these things work thinking otherwise.  But to me, the more fascinating issue is what will happen in the cyber world moving forward.  What I mean is, that site that shall not be named is now going to be on the President's radar.  That means that they are also going to be on the radar of the intelligence community and other parts of many governments.  If some sort of power struggle between Site and government eventually were to crystalize, who wins and who loses?  And what do "winning" and "losing" look like in that scenario?  :corn
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 11, 2017, 11:22:05 AM
I think, if you take into consideration everything that has transpired throughout this entire election cycle and likely will in the next four years, the only logical conclusion to arrive at is that everybody loses.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Chino on January 11, 2017, 11:25:28 AM
The "story" is so obviously fake. 

Why do you say that?
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: cramx3 on January 11, 2017, 11:27:57 AM
The "story" is so obviously fake that it's hard to fathom anyone who understands how these things work thinking otherwise.  But to me, the more fascinating issue is what will happen in the cyber world moving forward.  What I mean is, that site that shall not be named is now going to be on the President's radar.  That means that they are also going to be on the radar of the intelligence community and other parts of many governments.  If some sort of power struggle between Site and government eventually were to crystalize, who wins and who loses?  And what do "winning" and "losing" look like in that scenario?  :corn

I'm kind of shocked that site isn't already on the CIA/FBI radar (well maybe it is). 

The "story" is so obviously fake. 

Why do you say that?

I'm not totally sold on it being real or fake.  I am just so lost as to what to believe anymore.  It seems everything can be manipulated too easily.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2017, 11:32:08 AM
They were most assuredly already on the radar of the intelligence community. The intelligence community would have known what they were and how they worked and relegated them to the mostly harmless category.  What wouldn't surprise me is if Trump's DOJ ups the ante making them far more than what they actually are. Grabby's immaturity leads me to think he's the sort of guy that'd stomp the living shit out of a class of 3rd graders for making fun of his hair, so declaring war on these nimrods seems a pretty likely outcome. Can't see how that's beneficial, but it's hardly concerning to me.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Chino on January 11, 2017, 11:35:22 AM
The "story" is so obviously fake. 

Why do you say that?

I'm not totally sold on it being real or fake.  I am just so lost as to what to believe anymore.  It seems everything can be manipulated too easily.

This is where I'm at. Outside of the picture below floating around, I haven't really seen anything that disputes it.

*Bosk* Please don't ban, I'm just going off of " since the name is being explicitly mentioned in the news in connection with the story, I will allow it". Apologies if this is over the line.

(https://i.redd.it/whwb2gqutz8y.png)

Who knows, maybe our intelligence agencies are truly this shitty, but it's almost unbelievable that such a document, if fake, got so far through the chain of command and ultimately ended up leaking. And if this was on that site that can't be named, I would imagine that the combined resources of our intelligence agencies would have found its origin in a search.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Chino on January 11, 2017, 11:44:36 AM
They were most assuredly already on the radar of the intelligence community. The intelligence community would have known what they were and how they worked and relegated them to the mostly harmless category.  What wouldn't surprise me is if Trump's DOJ ups the ante making them far more than what they actually are. Grabby's immaturity leads me to think he's the sort of guy that'd stomp the living shit out of a class of 3rd graders for making fun of his hair, so declaring war on these nimrods seems a pretty likely outcome. Can't see how that's beneficial, but it's hardly concerning to me.

It most definitely was already on the radar. So much fucked up shit goes through that site on a daily basis, I feel like law enforcement agencies would be foolish not to keep an eye on it for red flags. I remember a few years ago a guy on there live streamed himself setting fire to his room in an attempt to kill himself. People tuned in and encouraged it. My guess is that Grabby will go after Buzzfeed before this site.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: cramx3 on January 11, 2017, 11:48:45 AM
Who knows, maybe our intelligence agencies are truly this shitty, but it's almost unbelievable that such a document, if fake, got so far through the chain of command and ultimately ended up leaking. And if this was on that site that can't be named, I would imagine that the combined resources of our intelligence agencies would have found its origin in a search.

I *think* people hate Trump so much that they didn't care to do the due diligence of checking the legitimacy of the story, they see a juicy story (and heck, even I admit it sounds plausible considering Trump) and run with it.  They put a little * saying it's unverified, but doesn't stop them presenting it because it allows people to continue their hatred of Trump.  But it's not just the media here, it's our own intelligence agency doing the same thing and I think it all stems from hatred of Trump and wanting there to be this huge scandal that they will believe the BS and the fact that it was Rick Wilson who was trolled shows that.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: bosk1 on January 11, 2017, 11:59:30 AM
The "story" is so obviously fake. 

Why do you say that?

Because: (1) All the major news outlets have had this "story" for months and didn't run it because they knew it wasn't corroborated; (2) Several have gone on record as saying it is uncorroborated; (3) We in fact know with reasonable certainty what the source of the "story" is; and (4) There is too much outlandish stuff in there that doesn't stand a chance of having actually happened.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Stadler on January 11, 2017, 12:01:11 PM
Holy f*** I feel like my dad when I showed him my first Kiss album.  I have NO IDEA what you people are talking about?  What site?  Why is it against forum rules?  What site is under government review, and why?

The actual report, I've already said why it's fake; that's just not how intelligence reports are written. They don't make subjective assessments like "perverted".  They don't talk about specific processes like "bugged" (that's a colloquialism that doesn't make sense at the operational level, and probably does more damage than good in terms of exposing processes and spycraft).   

I would imagine that there IS a British spy somewhere, there IS a report somewhere, it's just that that isn't it.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: bosk1 on January 11, 2017, 12:03:09 PM
They were most assuredly already on the radar of the intelligence community. The intelligence community would have known what they were and how they worked and relegated them to the mostly harmless category.  What wouldn't surprise me is if Trump's DOJ ups the ante making them far more than what they actually are. Grabby's immaturity leads me to think he's the sort of guy that'd stomp the living shit out of a class of 3rd graders for making fun of his hair, so declaring war on these nimrods seems a pretty likely outcome. Can't see how that's beneficial, but it's hardly concerning to me.
Of course they were already on their radar.  It's the "upping the ante" part that I was more talking about.  There's a difference between being watched and being targeted. 

I mean, what if, say, the Trump administration goes after them, barrels blazin'?  Maybe the site gets shut down.  Maybe there are other consequences.  But I would venture a guess that you'd have some individuals who are skilled at hiding themselves and skilled at real Internet mischief that decide they don't like that and decide to retaliate.  And let's say Anon decides they don't like what the government is doing in going after that site, and decides to go on the offensive themselves?  There could be serious havoc.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2017, 12:12:24 PM
They were most assuredly already on the radar of the intelligence community. The intelligence community would have known what they were and how they worked and relegated them to the mostly harmless category.  What wouldn't surprise me is if Trump's DOJ ups the ante making them far more than what they actually are. Grabby's immaturity leads me to think he's the sort of guy that'd stomp the living shit out of a class of 3rd graders for making fun of his hair, so declaring war on these nimrods seems a pretty likely outcome. Can't see how that's beneficial, but it's hardly concerning to me.
Of course they were already on their radar.  It's the "upping the ante" part that I was more talking about.  There's a difference between being watched and being targeted.
I suspect the targeting was inevitable anyway. The erosion of safe harbour and the fact that cyber laws are written by 70 year old elitists make that inevitable.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: bosk1 on January 11, 2017, 12:15:33 PM
They were most assuredly already on the radar of the intelligence community. The intelligence community would have known what they were and how they worked and relegated them to the mostly harmless category.  What wouldn't surprise me is if Trump's DOJ ups the ante making them far more than what they actually are. Grabby's immaturity leads me to think he's the sort of guy that'd stomp the living shit out of a class of 3rd graders for making fun of his hair, so declaring war on these nimrods seems a pretty likely outcome. Can't see how that's beneficial, but it's hardly concerning to me.
Of course they were already on their radar.  It's the "upping the ante" part that I was more talking about.  There's a difference between being watched and being targeted.
I suspect the targeting was inevitable anyway. The erosion of safe harbour and the fact that cyber laws are written by 70 year old elitists make that inevitable.
You are probably right.  But the thing is, we may very well have now arrived at the point where hypothetical inevitability becomes reality.  And we may see that reality unfold in a very ugly way.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Implode on January 11, 2017, 12:26:13 PM
Holy f*** I feel like my dad when I showed him my first Kiss album.  I have NO IDEA what you people are talking about?  What site?  Why is it against forum rules?  What site is under government review, and why?

The site is an 18+ image board where all posts are made anonymously. It's separated into many independent boards focusing on several topics varying from finance, to cartoons, fashion, to fetish pornography. The latter is one of the main reasons it's against forum rules to name drop. We can't lead to pornography sites. Totally understandable.

The site's been around for a little over 10 years now I think, and it's been a facet and breeding place for internet culture. It's responsible for many of the memes or internet jokes we know. It also is known for being the home of "Anonymous", the group of ameture hackers deemed as internet torrorists by Fox years ago. Also, since all posts are made anonymously, it obviously brings out the worst in people. There are sections of the site full of openly racist/sexist/disgusting people. It's a mess of a place, and every once in a while, things posted there make the news.

Tl;dr: you'll never see a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Edit: hopefully this doesn't break the rules. If so, I'll delete it. But I thought it'd be important to provide some context.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2017, 12:31:14 PM
They were most assuredly already on the radar of the intelligence community. The intelligence community would have known what they were and how they worked and relegated them to the mostly harmless category.  What wouldn't surprise me is if Trump's DOJ ups the ante making them far more than what they actually are. Grabby's immaturity leads me to think he's the sort of guy that'd stomp the living shit out of a class of 3rd graders for making fun of his hair, so declaring war on these nimrods seems a pretty likely outcome. Can't see how that's beneficial, but it's hardly concerning to me.
Of course they were already on their radar.  It's the "upping the ante" part that I was more talking about.  There's a difference between being watched and being targeted.
I suspect the targeting was inevitable anyway. The erosion of safe harbour and the fact that cyber laws are written by 70 year old elitists make that inevitable.
You are probably right.  But the thing is, we may very well have now arrived at the point where hypothetical inevitability becomes reality.  And we may see that reality unfold in a very ugly way.
I'm certainly curious to see how it plays out, but I resigned myself 6 months ago to seeing the internet fucked up rather severely over the next two years. Neither Grabby nor Hillary give a damn about privacy, nor to they care about the underlying bases for what makes things work. Trump because of a shallowness of mind and Hillary because of ego. Both would seek an immediate solution to a singular problem, disregarding the complexities entirely. If it's not an imageboard it'll be some other site that allows users to do questionable things and shutdowns will occur.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: cramx3 on January 11, 2017, 12:32:01 PM
They were most assuredly already on the radar of the intelligence community. The intelligence community would have known what they were and how they worked and relegated them to the mostly harmless category.  What wouldn't surprise me is if Trump's DOJ ups the ante making them far more than what they actually are. Grabby's immaturity leads me to think he's the sort of guy that'd stomp the living shit out of a class of 3rd graders for making fun of his hair, so declaring war on these nimrods seems a pretty likely outcome. Can't see how that's beneficial, but it's hardly concerning to me.
Of course they were already on their radar.  It's the "upping the ante" part that I was more talking about.  There's a difference between being watched and being targeted. 

I mean, what if, say, the Trump administration goes after them, barrels blazin'?  Maybe the site gets shut down.  Maybe there are other consequences.  But I would venture a guess that you'd have some individuals who are skilled at hiding themselves and skilled at real Internet mischief that decide they don't like that and decide to retaliate.  And let's say Anon decides they don't like what the government is doing in going after that site, and decides to go on the offensive themselves?  There could be serious havoc.

As shown with other illegal sites, once the government shuts them down they will just spring up somewhere else. I don't think that website really did anything that alarming here though.  And I don't see any reason for Trump to go after that website, I'm sure he will rip Buzzfeed though, but it almost seems like the website we are talking about was actually trying to help Trump in a way by de-legitimizing the current intelligent agencies and creating even more question marks around Trump and Russia that just muddies the water even more.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: bosk1 on January 11, 2017, 12:35:54 PM
Side rant/pet peeve:  I really don't get when people post, "I hope this doesn't break the rules, but here goes..."  Really??  If you aren't sure, it isn't hard to ask.  Then you don't have to hope.  You will know.  If it DOES break the rules, or if it is so borderline that even I'm not sure if it does, you will have pissed me off by not asking and just posting, and by highlighting the fact that you suspected it might break the rules, and I will be MORE inclined to boot you off the site.  If you think it might get you in trouble, just ask.  Don't just post it and think a disclaimer will get you off.  /rant

Anyhow, back on topic, that's fine.  The explanation is helpful.  Plus, you didn't name the site or drop hints about where to find it.  Describing why the content is a problem and a violation of our rules here is fine, even if not for the disclaimer I made above in the thread.  But let's be careful about not getting into too much unnecessary detail about the site.  Focus on the story itself, please.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: bosk1 on January 11, 2017, 12:43:29 PM
As shown with other illegal sites, once the government shuts them down they will just spring up somewhere else.

Yes, but that site is different.  And its user base is different.  And while the vast majority of its users are likely harmless or easily neutralized, I think it is likely that they have a few users who have the capability to cause REAL trouble and/or who have affiliations with those who do.

I don't think that website really did anything that alarming here though.  And I don't see any reason for Trump to go after that website, I'm sure he will rip Buzzfeed though, but it almost seems like the website we are talking about was actually trying to help Trump in a way by de-legitimizing the current intelligent agencies and creating even more question marks around Trump and Russia that just muddies the water even more.

Yes, but I'm not sure Trump gets it.  And even if he does, now that that site has his attention, he could conclude for other reasons that they are dangerous and should be targeted.  I think you underestimate that we could very well be on the verge of really seeing the hornet's nest getting kicked.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2017, 12:45:13 PM
They were most assuredly already on the radar of the intelligence community. The intelligence community would have known what they were and how they worked and relegated them to the mostly harmless category.  What wouldn't surprise me is if Trump's DOJ ups the ante making them far more than what they actually are. Grabby's immaturity leads me to think he's the sort of guy that'd stomp the living shit out of a class of 3rd graders for making fun of his hair, so declaring war on these nimrods seems a pretty likely outcome. Can't see how that's beneficial, but it's hardly concerning to me.
Of course they were already on their radar.  It's the "upping the ante" part that I was more talking about.  There's a difference between being watched and being targeted. 

I mean, what if, say, the Trump administration goes after them, barrels blazin'?  Maybe the site gets shut down.  Maybe there are other consequences.  But I would venture a guess that you'd have some individuals who are skilled at hiding themselves and skilled at real Internet mischief that decide they don't like that and decide to retaliate.  And let's say Anon decides they don't like what the government is doing in going after that site, and decides to go on the offensive themselves?  There could be serious havoc.

As shown with other illegal sites, once the government shuts them down they will just spring up somewhere else. I don't think that website really did anything that alarming here though.  And I don't see any reason for Trump to go after that website, I'm sure he will rip Buzzfeed though, but it almost seems like the website we are talking about was actually trying to help Trump in a way by de-legitimizing the current intelligent agencies and creating even more question marks around Trump and Russia that just muddies the water even more.
Sometimes that's true and others not so much. If you just make up an excuse to shut a site down then yes, it'll probably pop up elsewhere. If you make up an excuse to toss the owner in prison that changes things. If you attack the underlying principle that allows such sites to exist at all, then that has major downstream consequences. In this case the so-called illegal sites might just pop up elsewhere, but the perfectly valid sites that operate under the same principle might decide that it's just not worth the risk.

And calling a site illegal in this context is dubious, at best.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: bosk1 on January 11, 2017, 12:50:34 PM
They were most assuredly already on the radar of the intelligence community. The intelligence community would have known what they were and how they worked and relegated them to the mostly harmless category.  What wouldn't surprise me is if Trump's DOJ ups the ante making them far more than what they actually are. Grabby's immaturity leads me to think he's the sort of guy that'd stomp the living shit out of a class of 3rd graders for making fun of his hair, so declaring war on these nimrods seems a pretty likely outcome. Can't see how that's beneficial, but it's hardly concerning to me.
Of course they were already on their radar.  It's the "upping the ante" part that I was more talking about.  There's a difference between being watched and being targeted. 

I mean, what if, say, the Trump administration goes after them, barrels blazin'?  Maybe the site gets shut down.  Maybe there are other consequences.  But I would venture a guess that you'd have some individuals who are skilled at hiding themselves and skilled at real Internet mischief that decide they don't like that and decide to retaliate.  And let's say Anon decides they don't like what the government is doing in going after that site, and decides to go on the offensive themselves?  There could be serious havoc.

As shown with other illegal sites, once the government shuts them down they will just spring up somewhere else. I don't think that website really did anything that alarming here though.  And I don't see any reason for Trump to go after that website, I'm sure he will rip Buzzfeed though, but it almost seems like the website we are talking about was actually trying to help Trump in a way by de-legitimizing the current intelligent agencies and creating even more question marks around Trump and Russia that just muddies the water even more.
Sometimes that's true and others not so much. If you just make up an excuse to shut a site down then yes, it'll probably pop up elsewhere. If you make up an excuse to toss the owner in prison that changes things. If you attack the underlying principle that allows such sites to exist at all, then that has major downstream consequences. In this case the so-called illegal sites might just pop up elsewhere, but the perfectly valid sites that operate under the same principle might decide that it's just not worth the risk.

And calling a site illegal in this context is dubious, at best.

Hehe.  You said doobie.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: cramx3 on January 11, 2017, 01:40:25 PM
Agreed on the term illegal being dubious in this context, in my mind I had a certain website I was describing which is pretty much illegal and has constantly been shut down by certain governments only to pop up somewhere else. 

But I guess I didn't see the bigger picture that you both are painting which makes sense and is sad if it comes to that.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2017, 02:28:30 PM
It's a trap!
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: PowerSlave on January 11, 2017, 02:32:17 PM
It's a trap!

Admiral?
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Adami on January 11, 2017, 02:36:55 PM
Can't spell entrapment with out trap.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: 7th on January 11, 2017, 04:35:40 PM
Word is these reports are bogus "fake news" and Trump slammed the media yet again today for trying to drag him through the mud.  I think the media have yet to realize Trump is a popular figure like Ozzy or Cartman.  The worse he is or the uglier he is painted, the more people love him, the more his name is spoken, and the more support he gets.  Meanwhile, it appears he really is just interested in fixing a woefully corrupt government installed by decades of bad management.  He's actually working for things that ultimately benefit the people, yet the people are sharpening their pitchforks.  Typical groupthink stupidity really. 


Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: RuRoRul on January 11, 2017, 05:01:32 PM
Following this story last night, I found it difficult to sift through the massive amounts of bullshit (with so many commenters immediately jumping to "it's nothing!" or "lock him up!" and doing everything to obfuscate the facts). So in the spirit of trying to have clean discussion in the newly re-opened section here, I'm just going to post my understanding of what the story actually is, in case it is helpful to anyone else.

1. Research on Trump was performed by a private company, originally hired on behalf of Republican primary opponents then employed by Democrats after the primary was over. This company employed the "former MI6 official with ties to Russia" to conduct the research. This research is ostensibly the source of the 35 pages of memos that was published by Buzzfeed (so worth noting I think that is this document is not purported to be a government intelligence document).

2. The memos from this research ended up being known to US intelligence and numerous politicians and journalists last year (possibly via the British government) before the election. However, probably since the claims were so spectacular and were unverified, few news outlets published anything from them. An exception was Mother Jones which published a story on 31 October saying that a veteran spy from a Western nation had provided information on Trump's connection with Russia to the FBI. Since they were the only organisation (as far as I know) that published anything on it at the time and they couldn't provide further evidence, it got buried by more concrete stories and became just another rumour.

3. After the election, as the discussion regarding Russian interference in the election increased, the memos from the oppo research were circulating around politicians and journalists. John McCain, apparently bothered enough by their contents to think they needed to be investigated further, personally presented them to the director of the FBI (as I understand it the FBI probably already had them and were carrying out their own investigation).

4. Shortly after this, an intelligence briefing was presented to President Obama and President-Elect Trump on the subject of the investigation into the Russian interference in the election. The existence and information contained in the memos was part of the briefing (though not the only content).

5. CNN, aware of the existence of this intelligence briefing and that the memos (which they had had for some time but felt unable to report on until further investigation could confirm the claims) were being discussed, reported , factually, that Obama and Trump were briefed on the information contained in the memos, and described the gist of some of that information.

6. Buzzfeed then published the memos in their entirety - noting that they were unverified and may contain inaccuracy, but claiming that they were "letting the people decide".

So the important points worth mentioning that from what I have seen might get lost in the chaos or amongst other disinformation are that the "memos" published by Buzzfeed aren't claimed to be government documents, but oppo research conducted by a veteran British MI6 official (who has been described as reliable and has the credentials to at least carry out information like this by numerous journalists and government officials), and that the story broke by CNN was not simply the content of the memos, but rather that the president and president-elect had been briefed by US intelligence leaders about information which *included* those memos. Also the story reported by CNN is distinct from the dump of the memos by Buzzfeed.

There is also another narrative which I saw emerge, one which involves a site which is banned here (a rule I agree with in principle as I consider it to be basically the mainstream scumhole of the internet, but that makes discussing this element of the story a little difficult :lol). Without going into specifics that would break a rule, here is my understanding of this narrative and the facts that support it.

1. At some point in October, an anonymous poster on this unmentionable site claimed to have convinced a journalist (I believe a right-wing, "Never Trump" type) that there was going to be another leak of something related to Trump, possibly another sex tape. The idea was that journalists would be fooled and believe someting then be embarassed, "for the lulz" (it's important to note that stuff like this is a common feature of this site - as is anonymous posters posting complete bullshit).

2. After Mother Jones posted the story at the end of October, an anonymous poster posted on the unmentionable site that his attempt to fool the media had been successful, that they had took his information and "added a Russian spy angle to it" and ran with it. Many kekz were had.

3. Once the CNN / Buzzfeed story broke, the connection with the Mother Jones story and the unmentionable site was made... and there was a massive deluge of comments around the internet claiming that the mainstream media had been trolled, and that the memos were actualy produced by a troll who talked about it on the unmentionable site (these comments also conflated this document with actual fake documents and stories recently produced, which Buzzfeed didn't actually report). *This next part is my complete personal impression, but witnessing the volume and nature of comments last night that attempted to push the narrative that the entire thing was the media / intelligence services being fooled by trolls, I was very much reminded of the type of trolling usually associated with the unmentionable site trolls that they use to attempt to fool people.

You can draw your own conclusions, but personally I don't think the "unmentionable site narrative" holds up at all, and the evidence for it is extremely slim. (For example, note that the post that supposedly proves that trolls were responsible for providing the information actually says that it was the media that added the "Russian spy stuff"... which makes it kind of hard to claim that the troll provided the memo full of Russian spy stuff :lol). Plus, if the intent was genuinely to fool the media, why work so hard to make sure everyone is aware that the story is "false" as soon as you have fooled them? In my opinion if the unmentionable site trolls manage to "fool" anyone, it is by convincing people that the story is based on deliberately made up evidence intended to fool the media. (Also I would say that convincing people of this falsehood works better for their beloved Trump, rather than convincing the media to run extremely embarassing stories about Trump).

That's my take on the actual timeline and facts of what the story actually is, in terms of who is actually saying what - plus a little editorialising by me, but I hope the parts that are meant to be my personal impression rather than fact are clear enough. It took me a little while to get straight what was actually being reported and by who, so hopefully it is of some help to someone :lol. If there are any corrections please let me know as I think it'd be helpful if we were all at least discussing the same thing.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: lonestar on January 11, 2017, 06:44:15 PM
Oh what an exciting time to be alive....

True or not, we are actually having talks about a president elect  being into Russian hookers engaging in water sports, a mere 9 days before being inaugurated. And Twitler is behaving like the spoiled little brat he is. So attention to the whole world, our president to be can be riled with the simplest of accusations, it is officially open season on him.


Was much more pissed when he shut down the CNN reporter during his press conference today. Not only is that just not presidential, we pay you to deal with the tough problems man...that's like your fucking job... but you just made an enemy of a whole news organization. Have fun with that one Twitler.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: RuRoRul on January 11, 2017, 07:03:37 PM
I just came across a story by Washington Post about the journey of this document and its allegations into the public domain, seems a pretty fair and objective piece of this, also contains some new quotes from US intelligence officials.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.72efca769987

It seems a two page summary of the document was attached to an intelligence briefing to the president and president-elect on Russian interference (so the memos were not the sole or even the main content of the actual briefing). And in quotes in this story, it is being framed as being as much about informing the president of the fact that this document was so widely circulated and hence the allegations were out there as anything else.

When the story broke that the memos were bring discussed at the level of the heads of US intelligence and the president, Buzzfeed went ahead and dumped the whole document. While I am glad we can in fact see what is in there if all of the media were going to be talking about it and saying "we have seen this thing", ultimately it could turn out pretty badly as, even if this document was the real thing containing some true and damning stuff, it would still probably contain some false stuff, and some sensational stuff that could probably never be confirmed even if it is true.

In any case, Trump's handling of it is expectedly terrible. Since we know he is willing to blatantly lie, it would have been so easy to say "Yes, US intelligence briefed me about the report. They told me 'President Trump, you're terrific, you're so great, but some bad hombres out there have been circulating this horrible stuff about you - and it's not true by the way, absolutely not true - and we just thought you should know because it's about it because some losers out there might try to attack you with these lies'." Even if it wasnt 100% true, it is still closer to the truth than his angle that the intelligence services leaked this thing that journalists already had for months, and would make him look pretty good. But I suppose he wants to start his campaign against the free press and those within the intelligence community that aren't loyalists in earnest.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: RuRoRul on January 11, 2017, 07:25:19 PM
Was much more pissed when he shut down the CNN reporter during his press conference today. Not only is that just not presidential, we pay you to deal with the tough problems man...that's like your fucking job... but you just made an enemy of a whole news organization. Have fun with that one Twitler.
Yeah, this is the most troubling aspect of his press conference in my view. He isn't just making an enemy of one news organisation - he is taking the first steps towards basically not bring accountable to the press at all. He can just say "You're fake news!" to CNN and BBC (as a Brit I was even more annoyed by this one :lol) then take a question from Breitbart about how he will "reform the press". Meanwhile CNN reporter is told he will be thrown out if he tries to push to get a question again. If Trump is allowed to get away with it, it won't be long before he literally can just deal exclusively with media he likes (possibly even only those owned and controlled by his own people), while the "fake news" (i.e. outlets he does not like or that question him) are denied access. And while that may please the portion of the population that only wants to hear positive coverage of Trump for a short while, ultimately it would be disastrous for the people.

I hope that the media and at least most of the people can call bullshit on this, putting hyper-partisanship aside for once. That may be happening already (I hear Fox News was defending the CNN reporter on their channel). But people need to be very vigilant about this IMO. You thought that the "biased, lame-stream media" was bad at providing real coverage to hold a corrupt government accountable? Wait until you end up with literal state run propaganda (+ Donald's Tweets) as your only coverage.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: 7th on January 11, 2017, 07:49:03 PM
True or not, we are actually having talks about a president elect  being into Russian hookers engaging in water sports, a mere 9 days before being inaugurated.

Just understand that it was the Clinton Administration that gave us this political media landscape.  Before Billary hit the scene in the 90s, politics news was pretty much stale and boring.  Now it's just tabloid entertainment and the Clintons were the first family that spearheaded smut politics into the mainstream.

I also like how credit is being lent to the idea of Trump engaging with Russian hookers, when in fact, he is a billionaire with an immigrant supermodel wife and it is common knowledge he is/was a womanizing hound dog.  Sure, he's probably laid pipe all over the globe, and he probably paid for it half the time (really, who's gonna fuck that haircut for free?).  Are people really believing that he's not every bit as sleazy as any other billionaire playboy?  I am a Trump supporter and I don't rule it out.  Would anyone be shocked to find out the guy who said "they'll let you grab..." hasn't taken advantage of his wealth and position in the past?  BUT, the left can't hold him to a presidential standard they abolished so Bill Clinton could exercise his pecker wherever he wanted. 

As for the CNN scum, I completely applaud Trump for shutting him down.  CNN stands for Credibility Not Necessary, and they should be filed under fake news for most of their reporting.  Just about every piece I read or saw from them during the election process was biased to hell, skewed beyond facts, and intentionally architected to promote a secular progressive agenda - a truly fascist movement that aims to regulate speech and divide by special interests.  Obama's movement, Clinton's movement, now a defunct movement globally. :-) 






 

       
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: 7th on January 11, 2017, 07:52:13 PM
Was much more pissed when he shut down the CNN reporter during his press conference today. Not only is that just not presidential, we pay you to deal with the tough problems man...that's like your fucking job... but you just made an enemy of a whole news organization. Have fun with that one Twitler.
Yeah, this is the most troubling aspect of his press conference in my view.

So were you complaining about Obama treating Fox News the same way for the last 8 years?  (Except the Fox People were never as unprofessional in a press conference as the CNN flunky was, so Obama never had to spank them so hard.)
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Chino on January 11, 2017, 08:00:19 PM
Was much more pissed when he shut down the CNN reporter during his press conference today. Not only is that just not presidential, we pay you to deal with the tough problems man...that's like your fucking job... but you just made an enemy of a whole news organization. Have fun with that one Twitler.
Yeah, this is the most troubling aspect of his press conference in my view.

So were you complaining about Obama treating Fox News the same way for the last 8 years?  (Except the Fox People were never as unprofessional in a press conference as the CNN flunky was, so Obama never had to spank them so hard.)

That was never said. You're implying that and making accusations. Posts like that were what got this sub closed. And not for nothing, Obama let Fox News in his home.

(http://media.salon.com/2014/02/obama_oreilly.jpg)
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2017, 08:44:34 PM
I like that right after calling out the CNN guy for being fake news he fielded a question from Breitbart.

In any event, R3's excellent synopsis sounds about like what I took out of all of this. All of the news agencies sat on the report until it showed up in a PDB and then it became newsworthy.


edit: Also, when the Obama white house started to freeze out FOX news, the entire press corps collectively stood up for them. The other networks, including CNN, refused to conduct an interview the white house was pushing until it agreed to include FOX, in what was seen as a victory against Obama.  I'll be interested to see if FOX makes a stand for them here. It might and it might not. By necessity FOX tries to hold itself up as classy and professional and this is something it should be on. At the same time Grabby has his Twitter and Breitbart in his pocket, so toeing the Trump line might be important for maintaining its relevance as the republican mouthpiece.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: KevShmev on January 11, 2017, 09:08:51 PM
And not for nothing, Obama let Fox News in his home.


While Obama did a couple of interviews with O'Reilly, he basically spent the last eight years trashing and ignoring Fox News. Democrats routinely refer to it as Faux News, so I think, on some level, this is Trump mocking that, and CNN is an easy target since they were in the tank for Hillary as much as you possibly could be.

I wish someone less childish was the one doing it, but I am always in favor of someone calling out the media.  The media is still throwing a fit over the election results, and as unlikable as Trump is, he still has higher approval ratings than the media as a whole, which isn't saying much.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: millahh on January 11, 2017, 09:31:44 PM
And not for nothing, Obama let Fox News in his home.


While Obama did a couple of interviews with O'Reilly, he basically spent the last eight years trashing and ignoring Fox News. Democrats routinely refer to it as Faux News, so I think, on some level, this is Trump mocking that, and CNN is an easy target since they were in the tank for Hillary as much as you possibly could be.
.

CNN had Lewandowski on their payroll, and never remotely challenged any of his bullshit...they were just a much an unquestioning megaphone for Trump's bullshit as Hillary's, just in different ways.

CNN is terrible, not because of bias, but because it is completely brain-dead garbage, somehow passing itself off as journalism.  It's the cable version of USA Today (and even that is giving it too much credit).
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: cramx3 on January 11, 2017, 09:44:26 PM
I'll be interested to see if FOX makes a stand for them here.

Shepard Smith did  http://theweek.com/speedreads/672744/foxs-shepard-smith-defends-cnn-against-donald-trumps-belittling (http://theweek.com/speedreads/672744/foxs-shepard-smith-defends-cnn-against-donald-trumps-belittling)

Also, I don't trust CNN after this past year so labelling them as "fake news" seems ok to me, didn't see what Trump did to the reporter, but I still think a president should hold himself to a better standard than arguing with a reporter publicly.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: El Barto on January 11, 2017, 10:03:16 PM
I'll be interested to see if FOX makes a stand for them here.

Shepard Smith did  http://theweek.com/speedreads/672744/foxs-shepard-smith-defends-cnn-against-donald-trumps-belittling (http://theweek.com/speedreads/672744/foxs-shepard-smith-defends-cnn-against-donald-trumps-belittling)

Also, I don't trust CNN after this past year so labelling them as "fake news" seems ok to me, didn't see what Trump did to the reporter, but I still think a president should hold himself to a better standard than arguing with a reporter publicly.
I'm glad FOX did that and it's a pretty definitive statement. It's also a 30 second statement buried within quite a bit of commentary saying Trump was right and how Acosta owes everybody an apology.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: XJDenton on January 11, 2017, 10:25:23 PM
CNN has its faults as a news agency, but Trumps behaviour towards them in the press conference was abhorrent. As for the allegations, well, I'll wait and see if anything else leaks. Claims like that...if true somebody has evidence lying about.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Stadler on January 12, 2017, 06:57:10 AM
Plus, if the intent was genuinely to fool the media, why work so hard to make sure everyone is aware that the story is "false" as soon as you have fooled them?

Unless I'm misunderstanding you (which is possible), why WOULDN'T you?  If you're going to fool the media, the BEST way is to get them to run with fake news as if it was real, and once they run, why not show that it's fake?   Of all you wrote, this was the one sentence that rung completely false to me.  I would expect them to make sure everyone knew it was "fake" immediately to show that the media doesn't give a shit about veracity, just sensationalism. 
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Stadler on January 12, 2017, 07:02:02 AM
Oh what an exciting time to be alive....

True or not, we are actually having talks about a president elect  being into Russian hookers engaging in water sports, a mere 9 days before being inaugurated. And Twitler is behaving like the spoiled little brat he is. So attention to the whole world, our president to be can be riled with the simplest of accusations, it is officially open season on him.

As opposed to having a SITTING President sticking cigars who knows where in the Oval Office.  Or whatever skeleton Hillary has in her closet. 

Look, I'm no Trump guy, didn't vote for him, don't like him now, and want to see his Twitter feed destroyed immediately (I'm very against Twitter as a political tool; it's an Orwellian mechanism to dumb down the masses, nothing more) but at least be fair.   Nothing we're seeing here is unique to Trump, and nothing here isn't in some way massively hypocritical.   

Quote
Was much more pissed when he shut down the CNN reporter during his press conference today. Not only is that just not presidential, we pay you to deal with the tough problems man...that's like your fucking job... but you just made an enemy of a whole news organization. Have fun with that one Twitler.

But of course there are two sides to the story.  The reporter wouldn't let it go, and I have heard at least one report that the reporter in question has played that game before, and was in danger of losing his press credentials for being less than professional at other Presidential press conferences (with the current guy). 

So while I get it, it all has to be on Trump because he's well, orange, but the TRUTH is often not as black and white.   Just be fair.  You've got plenty already to go after Trump about; you don't need to pile on with hypocritical one-sided attacks.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 12, 2017, 07:03:18 AM
CNN has its faults as a news agency, but Trumps behaviour towards them in the press conference was abhorrent. As for the allegations, well, I'll wait and see if anything else leaks. Claims like that...if true somebody has evidence lying about.

So you don't think that reporter was out of line continuously interrupting the President-Elect of the United States?  :lol
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Stadler on January 12, 2017, 07:08:04 AM
Since we know he is willing to blatantly lie,

And we know this how? 

Why the focus on Trump?  If Obama (and by extension, Hillary) knew of this months ago, why is it an issue now?  THEY opted to use it for political expediency, and now it's blowing up.   There's a lot of blame to go around here, not just at Trump (who I do concede could be handling this better).

I used to watch SNL with my daughter; I would tape it, and we would watch it on nights she was at my house (I'm divorced from her mom).  Well, she went off to boarding school this past year, so I had about 30 episodes, dating back to over a year ago, and I decided to burn some of them off to make some space.    More than any other thing, I found myself checking the "Original Air" date, because I was blown away at what was known when.   Colin Jost was making jokes about Russian hackers, and "Hillary" (Kate McKinnon) was making jokes about Putin and Russia well over six months before the election.  This wasn't a case of "Russia hacked us, released all this heretofore unknown info days before the election, and swayed the election to Trump!"   All this stuff was known and baked into the numbers.  We're just watching the McCarthy-esque witch hunt happening now.  Nothing more.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Stadler on January 12, 2017, 07:12:45 AM
Was much more pissed when he shut down the CNN reporter during his press conference today. Not only is that just not presidential, we pay you to deal with the tough problems man...that's like your fucking job... but you just made an enemy of a whole news organization. Have fun with that one Twitler.
Yeah, this is the most troubling aspect of his press conference in my view. He isn't just making an enemy of one news organisation - he is taking the first steps towards basically not bring accountable to the press at all. He can just say "You're fake news!" to CNN and BBC (as a Brit I was even more annoyed by this one :lol) then take a question from Breitbart about how he will "reform the press". Meanwhile CNN reporter is told he will be thrown out if he tries to push to get a question again. If Trump is allowed to get away with it, it won't be long before he literally can just deal exclusively with media he likes (possibly even only those owned and controlled by his own people), while the "fake news" (i.e. outlets he does not like or that question him) are denied access. And while that may please the portion of the population that only wants to hear positive coverage of Trump for a short while, ultimately it would be disastrous for the people.

I hope that the media and at least most of the people can call bullshit on this, putting hyper-partisanship aside for once. That may be happening already (I hear Fox News was defending the CNN reporter on their channel). But people need to be very vigilant about this IMO. You thought that the "biased, lame-stream media" was bad at providing real coverage to hold a corrupt government accountable? Wait until you end up with literal state run propaganda (+ Donald's Tweets) as your only coverage.

Not to you, personally RuRoRul, but as a general point:  let's not get too wrapped up in the moment here.  We are watching one volley in a tennis match and trying to judge the entire match.   The press is very powerful.  VERY powerful.  Trump can take them on, sure, but CNN has 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year to prove their veracity and integrity.  This is a DEBATE.   Debates have pro and con and rebuttal.   We're watching one exchange.    Trump can scream "FAKE NEWS!" all day long, but there WILL be real news on that network, and people can make their own determination.   

We can't worry about the Trump supporter who isn't listening to reason or fact and has their mind made up, any more than we can worry about the Bernie supporter that isn't interested in facts or reasons and STILL believes that we can pay for "free college" by just taxing the 1% on their securities transactions.   
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Stadler on January 12, 2017, 07:17:19 AM
And not for nothing, Obama let Fox News in his home.


While Obama did a couple of interviews with O'Reilly, he basically spent the last eight years trashing and ignoring Fox News. Democrats routinely refer to it as Faux News, so I think, on some level, this is Trump mocking that, and CNN is an easy target since they were in the tank for Hillary as much as you possibly could be.

I wish someone less childish was the one doing it, but I am always in favor of someone calling out the media.  The media is still throwing a fit over the election results, and as unlikable as Trump is, he still has higher approval ratings than the media as a whole, which isn't saying much.

Obama went so far as to BLAME Fox News for the election loss.   And yet, almost* every study on the matter shows that Fox News is far less biased than either CNN or (the industry standard for liberal media bias) MSNBC.   It's just that when it does skew, it skews right, and since there are so few right-skewing media outlets (and the bulk of media outlets are skewed slightly left), it LOOKS more biased than it really is.

* I say "almost" to be fair; I know of NO study that doesn't back this up, but I'm sure there is at least one out there somewhere.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Stadler on January 12, 2017, 07:20:07 AM
I'll be interested to see if FOX makes a stand for them here.

Shepard Smith did  http://theweek.com/speedreads/672744/foxs-shepard-smith-defends-cnn-against-donald-trumps-belittling (http://theweek.com/speedreads/672744/foxs-shepard-smith-defends-cnn-against-donald-trumps-belittling)

Also, I don't trust CNN after this past year so labelling them as "fake news" seems ok to me, didn't see what Trump did to the reporter, but I still think a president should hold himself to a better standard than arguing with a reporter publicly.

Please don't mistake this; I think Shep Smith was right as rain to stick up for CNN, so I'm not at all calling on that, but I am saying that it doesn't surprise me that it was Smith; he makes no bones about his politics, which are far more left than most people (even conservatives) would expect.  He's not Trump sycophant, by any stretch.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: RuRoRul on January 12, 2017, 07:50:35 AM
Plus, if the intent was genuinely to fool the media, why work so hard to make sure everyone is aware that the story is "false" as soon as you have fooled them?

Unless I'm misunderstanding you (which is possible), why WOULDN'T you?  If you're going to fool the media, the BEST way is to get them to run with fake news as if it was real, and once they run, why not show that it's fake?   Of all you wrote, this was the one sentence that rung completely false to me.  I would expect them to make sure everyone knew it was "fake" immediately to show that the media doesn't give a shit about veracity, just sensationalism.
I think my phrasing might be misleading... You're right, of course if the idea is to troll the media and people by convincing them to report and believe something ridiculous to end up with egg on their face, you have to expose that the ridiculous thing was fake. The part that didn't make sense to me, and the only part I'd quibble with in your description, is the timing, and precisely what "immediately" means. I think you would want to reveal that it's a fake *after* the media has ran with it and people have bought it, where as my impression (it is obviously hard to draw a firm line with this so it will be subjective) was that the attempt to convince people it was fake was happening *during* the time when the story was breaking. More like an attempt to convince people "don't pay attention to this story, it's fake!" before they ever got the chance to buy into it, rather than an attempt to first fool people into reporting on / believing the story then showing they'd been fooled.

As I say that's just my personal impression, but considering that it has now been confirmed by so many sources that there is indeed a document from a private intelligence company that researched Trump, I'm inclined to think my initial impression was right. The real "troll job" here by the unmentionables was successfully putting the idea that the whole thing was a "troll job" by them out into the public consciousness and muddying the waters. Even when the exact details of the story are entirely documented (and regardless of whether  it turned out that every allegation against Trump, no matter where it came from, was categorically proven false), I'll bet that years later you will still see comments on Twitter or Facebook or YouTube or wherever referring to that time that CNN was trolled into reporting stuff by the unmentionable site, even if it never happened.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: bosk1 on January 12, 2017, 08:00:35 AM
Was much more pissed when he shut down the CNN reporter during his press conference today. Not only is that just not presidential, we pay you to deal with the tough problems man...that's like your fucking job... but you just made an enemy of a whole news organization. Have fun with that one Twitler.
Yeah, this is the most troubling aspect of his press conference in my view.

So were you complaining about Obama treating Fox News the same way for the last 8 years?  (Except the Fox People were never as unprofessional in a press conference as the CNN flunky was, so Obama never had to spank them so hard.)

Posts like that were what got this sub closed. 

Yes.  Posts like 7th's and Lonestar's.  So, please, keep it classy or keep silent.  I won't keep asking.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: bosk1 on January 12, 2017, 08:05:19 AM
I just came across a story by Washington Post about the journey of this document and its allegations into the public domain, seems a pretty fair and objective piece of this, also contains some new quotes from US intelligence officials.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.72efca769987

It seems a two page summary of the document was attached to an intelligence briefing to the president and president-elect on Russian interference (so the memos were not the sole or even the main content of the actual briefing). And in quotes in this story, it is being framed as being as much about informing the president of the fact that this document was so widely circulated and hence the allegations were out there as anything else.

The bolded is what makes the current state of the story somewhat misleading.  The summary was referenced in a briefing by the intelligence team.  It was NOT an "intelligence briefing."  Obama's chief of intelligence went on record as specifically saying that they made it clear that it was NOT "intelligence," but, as you said in your last sentence, was summarized and simply put out there as an FYI that the rumor was circulating.  And frankly, it makes sense that they didn't actually give the dossier to Trump or Obama.  That way, both could truthfully deny having actually seen it. 
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: RuRoRul on January 12, 2017, 08:34:42 AM
Since we know he is willing to blatantly lie,

And we know this how? 

Why the focus on Trump?  If Obama (and by extension, Hillary) knew of this months ago, why is it an issue now?  THEY opted to use it for political expediency, and now it's blowing up.   There's a lot of blame to go around here, not just at Trump (who I do concede could be handling this better).


If we can't agree on common ground that Donald Trump is at least willing to lie, I'm not sure we will really be able to get anywhere :lol. To be clear I am definitely not saying Trump is the only politician willing to lie, and I was not even necessarily criticising him for lying. I was criticising the poor strategy in the way he handled it, as I think it would have been a much smarter move to say "Yes, I was briefed on this by intelligence agencies... they wanted to tell me about it because they wanted me to know that these proven false allegations were out there and I might need to deal with them." (That may or may not be exactly what US intelligence told him, which was why I mentioned that it might require being comfortable with lying). Instead he denied everything, railed at the intelligence community for leaking documents (which isn't what happened as the media already had the memos) and claimed CNN's story was untrue (which it wasn't - whether it was responsible journalism to call attention to the memos is a different question, but the fact that they were being discussed by US intelligence and POTUS / PEOTUS was true). I have noticed that Trump surrogates seem to be starting to move onto the "intelligence agencies wanted to tell Trump about it because it wasn't true" approach, but if Trump was smart that would have been his play right from the start.

The focus on Trump here is purely about how he handled questions about the reports as President Elect. Not trying to blame one politician or the other for anything (the press already had the memos before the election, and they didn't get them from Obama or Hilary).

Quote
let's not get too wrapped up in the moment here.  We are watching one volley in a tennis match and trying to judge the entire match.   The press is very powerful.  VERY powerful.  Trump can take them on, sure, but CNN has 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year to prove their veracity and integrity.  This is a DEBATE.   Debates have pro and con and rebuttal.   We're watching one exchange.    Trump can scream "FAKE NEWS!" all day long, but there WILL be real news on that network, and people can make their own determination.   

I definitely don't want to sound as though I am getting carried away or exaggerating things that are happening now. Trump had a bit of bickering with a CNN reporter when he denied them a question and the reporter kept shouting out to him trying to be heard. That is indeed all that happened. For now. However, one of the main points about Trump was that, for better or worse, he is a different beast to the presidents that came before him. The number of times that something about his candidacy or election has been "unprecedented" is beyond count. We can't get ahead of ourselves, sure, but neither can we just dismiss small steps towards something more extreme just because we think that it's something that will never, can never, change. You say that major media organisations can always fight back or debate against Trump if he has a conflict with them, which is true now... but what if that news network can't report real news about the government because they are denied access? What if the government uses its power to shut down certain outlets because they are accused of being "fake news"? Sounds extreme? Of course it is, and claiming that we are near that stage now would be untrue. But given all the other extreme and unprecedented events we have seen unfold, I don't think we can approach it with the attitude of "don't worry, that could never actually happen"... instead perhaps with "that will not happen, because we won't let it". That has to mean being willing to reasonably call out the small steps towards the extreme when we see them.

Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: bosk1 on January 12, 2017, 08:50:41 AM
Well, again, I think you are making this into something it isn't.  As I understand it, he wasn't truly "briefed" on it, and it wasn't something that was being looked at seriously by intelligence agencies as intelligence.  Obama's head of intelligence said as much.  So I'm not sure how Trump supposedly lied here.  Not that he doesn't or isn't capable.  But I don't see it here. 

I feel a lot like when I was having a "discussion" with my mom about him back in March of last year.  She was ranting about a lot of things that made him a bad candidate, and I mostly agreed, up to the point where she insisted that he is obviously and demonstrably a racist, and that that is proven, indisputable fact.  I basically said, "whoa, let's pump the brakes here for a second.  I kinda feel like he might have racist tendencies too.  But I haven't seen anything that actually shows that he is a racist.  What are you aware of that makes him 'obviously and demonstrably' a racist?  I'm not aware of any of that."  There was a lot of back and forth and misinformation.  But at the end of the discussion, we were where I thought we would be:  There was stuff that maybe, could possibly indirectly indicate some racist tendencies.  Maybe.  But nothing that made him obviously, demonstrably, and indisputably a racist. 

Similarly, I'm not seeing anything that clearly indicates a lie here either.  What am I missing?
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: El Barto on January 12, 2017, 09:04:15 AM
I don't see any deliberate actual lying here. At the same time I don't see how anybody could actually argue against the man's complete indifference to the truth. He says whatever the hell he wants with absolutely no care in the world as to whether or not it's true.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Chino on January 12, 2017, 09:06:13 AM
Speaking of lying... make of this what you will.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-press-conference-folders-business-plan-empire-blank-fake-handover-donald-jr-eric-a7523426.html
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: RuRoRul on January 12, 2017, 09:12:18 AM
Re: Lying - I was just saying that approaching any questions in his press conference with "Yes, I was told about the memos and their allegations. The intelligence services told me about them because they are 100% false but they felt they had to inform me they are out there," would have been a better move strategically, whether or not it was the complete truth (I personally don't know exactly what intelligence leaders might have said so I couldn't say whether that was the complete truth or not). The part about Trump being a liar was just me commenting that I figured he would be comfortable with massaging the truth if it was necessary :lol.

I just saw that Trump is now saying essentially that on Twitter, so looks like his team might have wised up to that strategy.

In other news, some info on the former MI6 official responsible for the research, since his name is already out there:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38591382
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: jsbru on January 12, 2017, 09:31:14 AM
True or not, we are actually having talks about a president elect  being into Russian hookers engaging in water sports, a mere 9 days before being inaugurated.

Just understand that it was the Clinton Administration that gave us this political media landscape.  Before Billary hit the scene in the 90s, politics news was pretty much stale and boring.  Now it's just tabloid entertainment and the Clintons were the first family that spearheaded smut politics into the mainstream.

I also like how credit is being lent to the idea of Trump engaging with Russian hookers, when in fact, he is a billionaire with an immigrant supermodel wife and it is common knowledge he is/was a womanizing hound dog.  Sure, he's probably laid pipe all over the globe, and he probably paid for it half the time (really, who's gonna fuck that haircut for free?).  Are people really believing that he's not every bit as sleazy as any other billionaire playboy?  I am a Trump supporter and I don't rule it out.  Would anyone be shocked to find out the guy who said "they'll let you grab..." hasn't taken advantage of his wealth and position in the past?  BUT, the left can't hold him to a presidential standard they abolished so Bill Clinton could exercise his pecker wherever he wanted. 

What I don't get is that you admit all this, but that it doesn't bother you.

Self-restraint is one of the key competencies for the job of POTUS.  It's not just one that's "nice to have."  It's basically an essential quality that will make or break you as a President.

Not just his sexcapades, but his behavior toward the media and his behavior on Twitter suggests that this man has none.

It's going to be an entertaining (in a sad, dark way) four years watching Americans figure out just how important it is.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 12, 2017, 09:35:13 AM
One thing that continues to bug me about Trump speaking to the public is his continued use of the words "Trust me".  I cynically believe that anybody who has to constantly urge me to trust them, trust them, trust them, especially when weathering bad press, is probably not somebody I feel comfortable ACTUALLY trusting.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: cramx3 on January 12, 2017, 09:37:03 AM
In other news, some info on the former MI6 official responsible for the research, since his name is already out there:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38591382

As much as this guy may have been labelled as competent, it seems his report did not come from our government which to me makes it at least appear like a witch hunt, plus this nugget in that article:

Quote
However, as Mr Steele was now working in the private sector, our correspondent said, there was "probably a fair bit of money involved" in the commissioning of the reports.

Yea, I don't find his report to be reputable and obviously neither did our government, yet buzzfeed did.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: cramx3 on January 12, 2017, 09:39:04 AM
One thing that continues to bug me about Trump speaking to the public is his continued use of the words "Trust me".  I cynically believe that anybody who has to constantly urge me to trust them, trust them, trust them, especially when weathering bad press, is probably not somebody I feel comfortable ACTUALLY trusting.

Totally agree with this.  It's also why I feel Bill O'Reilly is THE SPIN ZONE because he advertises himself as the no spin zone.  If you have to say it, then to me, it's because that's not what you are doing.  Like some sort of reverse psychology.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: bosk1 on January 12, 2017, 09:46:02 AM
Yea, I don't find his report to be reputable and obviously neither did our government, yet buzzfeed did.

Not only that, but the rest of the mainstream media (which had been largely conducting themselves no better than tabloids during most of the election cycle) didn't find it reputable enough to print either.  Remember, they all had it for months and had not seen fit to print it.  It was only after Buzzfeed posted it and then CNN linked to Buzzfeed posting it that the other news outlets did the same, replete with caveats about the sources being unsubstantiated.  To me, that speaks volumes.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: cramx3 on January 12, 2017, 09:51:11 AM
Yea, I don't find his report to be reputable and obviously neither did our government, yet buzzfeed did.

Not only that, but the rest of the mainstream media (which had been largely conducting themselves no better than tabloids during most of the election cycle) didn't find it reputable enough to print either.  Remember, they all had it for months and had not seen fit to print it.  It was only after Buzzfeed posted it and then CNN linked to Buzzfeed posting it that the other news outlets did the same, replete with caveats about the sources being unsubstantiated.  To me, that speaks volumes.

Yup, it honestly had made me think that some of these news outlets are in cohorts.  I mean, buzzfeed has not been known to make headline political news and obviously does not have journalistic integrity, but as soon as they post it, the rest of the news outlets jump on it (even though they had it for awhile and didn't report it).  But all these outlets are known for disliking Trump, so getting this out there helps their political cause plus gains tons of clicks/views to generate ad money.  While NONE of what I just said is fact and it really just goes back to what I said in the OP in that it makes me feel even less trust worthy of the media.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: bosk1 on January 12, 2017, 10:24:33 AM
Yea, I don't find his report to be reputable and obviously neither did our government, yet buzzfeed did.

Not only that, but the rest of the mainstream media (which had been largely conducting themselves no better than tabloids during most of the election cycle) didn't find it reputable enough to print either.  Remember, they all had it for months and had not seen fit to print it.  It was only after Buzzfeed posted it and then CNN linked to Buzzfeed posting it that the other news outlets did the same, replete with caveats about the sources being unsubstantiated.  To me, that speaks volumes.

Yup, it honestly had made me think that some of these news outlets are in cohorts.  I mean, buzzfeed has not been known to make headline political news and obviously does not have journalistic integrity, but as soon as they post it, the rest of the news outlets jump on it (even though they had it for awhile and didn't report it).  But all these outlets are known for disliking Trump, so getting this out there helps their political cause plus gains tons of clicks/views to generate ad money.  While NONE of what I just said is fact and it really just goes back to what I said in the OP in that it makes me feel even less trust worthy of the media.

Well, they are, but not in the way you are suggesting.  There are common sources and outlets where a lot of them get their stories and material.  That is why if you read a story on one source, it will often be either word-for-word or with slight modifications if you read it somewhere else. 

But they are also competitors.  So if one posts a story that will bring exposure or generate discussion (note that I did not say "that is newsworthy"), the others will likely post it as well so they aren't deemed to be inferior or out of the loop.

In this case, again, they all had the story, but chose not to post it.  CNN broke from that when they linked to the Buzzfeed article, so the rest then followed suit.  That is common practice and has been since forever.  Nothing new here.  But what is new is the lengths they went to to include caveats about its reliability.  It's...it's almost like they temporarily rediscovered "journalistic integrity."
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Stadler on January 12, 2017, 11:47:21 AM

It's going to be an entertaining (in a sad, dark way) four years watching Americans figure out just how important it is.

But you're one of the enlightened few (obvi all Democrats) that actually know this already?

Look, I say that somewhat tongue in cheek; you're entitled to your opinion, but, "self-restraint" is no more a "must have" than anything else, it's all in the totality of the package.  It's not going to be any darker than the eight years under Obama, just different.  As Obama was different from Bush who was different from Clinton who was different from...   You cannot tell me that presidents like Kennedy, Nixon, and Clinton are to be revered for their self-restraint.   
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: 7th on January 12, 2017, 12:09:30 PM
I'll be interested to see if FOX makes a stand for them here.

Some on that network already did defend the CNN guy, but Fox is probably going to be pretty pro Trump for a while because as MSNBC and Newsweek have reported recently huge shake ups happened around there before and especially after the election.  Rumor is that Murdoch's sons were positioning to take over the network from their aging dad, make it more progressive, and install Megyn Kelly as their champion.  When Trump won the deals fell through and Kelly was shown the door.  This explains why the last chapters of her book are written as if she took part in "taking Trump down" and all that.  Really interesting stuff:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-truth-behind-megyn-kelly%e2%80%99s-nbc-deal/ar-BBy7FmW?ocid=spartanntp

   
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Chino on January 12, 2017, 01:58:07 PM
Was Trump lying yesterday or 4 years ago?

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-trump-talks-vladimir-putin-relationship-in-2013-interview-w460547
Title: Re: fulfilled my quota of 1 P/R post per year
Post by: Shadow Ninja 2.0 on January 12, 2017, 02:02:03 PM
can't it be motherfuckin
BOTH THINGS
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: El Barto on January 12, 2017, 02:19:57 PM
I'll be interested to see if FOX makes a stand for them here.

Some on that network already did defend the CNN guy, but Fox is probably going to be pretty pro Trump for a while because as MSNBC and Newsweek have reported recently huge shake ups happened around there before and especially after the election.  Rumor is that Murdoch's sons were positioning to take over the network from their aging dad, make it more progressive, and install Megyn Kelly as their champion.  When Trump won the deals fell through and Kelly was shown the door.  This explains why the last chapters of her book are written as if she took part in "taking Trump down" and all that.  Really interesting stuff:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-truth-behind-megyn-kelly%e2%80%99s-nbc-deal/ar-BBy7FmW?ocid=spartanntp

   
Interesting read. Shepard Smith was pretty clear in his defense, and used "our" in his statements referring to FOX as a whole. The entertainment wing at FOX continued to defend Trump and blast CNN. So yeah, that sounds about right.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: 7th on January 12, 2017, 03:41:56 PM
Was Trump lying yesterday or 4 years ago?

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-trump-talks-vladimir-putin-relationship-in-2013-interview-w460547

Neither.  A person at his level can have relationships with other people at his level and never actually know or meet each other.  They have relationships by proxy so when it is convenient they can claim to have or to not have ties.  BUT, if I had to wager, Trump knows Putin and Putin knows Trump yet I doubt they are golf buddies, but it is crystal clear that Ivanka is at least acquainted to people close to Putin.  Rich kids partying in Europe, shopping in Morocco, or playing tennis in the Hamptons doesn't mean all their family interests are intertwined.   
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: KevShmev on January 12, 2017, 06:07:59 PM
I'll be interested to see if FOX makes a stand for them here.

Some on that network already did defend the CNN guy, but Fox is probably going to be pretty pro Trump for a while because as MSNBC and Newsweek have reported recently huge shake ups happened around there before and especially after the election.  Rumor is that Murdoch's sons were positioning to take over the network from their aging dad, make it more progressive, and install Megyn Kelly as their champion.  When Trump won the deals fell through and Kelly was shown the door.  This explains why the last chapters of her book are written as if she took part in "taking Trump down" and all that.  Really interesting stuff:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-truth-behind-megyn-kelly%e2%80%99s-nbc-deal/ar-BBy7FmW?ocid=spartanntp

 

Er, I am pretty sure she left on her own, even though Fox was offering her more money.  I can't say I blame her, a) because she has three young kids and will now have most evenings off, and b) Fox's brand has been badly damaged in the last year and she is smart enough to move away from that. 
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Lucien on January 12, 2017, 07:37:15 PM
https://twitter.com/chris_baugh_/status/818998378285580292

read the whole thing he did, ending at like point 57 or so. since it was made, there are a ton of replies to each point, so it might take a little while to get through. it's an interesting read
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: 7th on January 12, 2017, 08:05:39 PM
I'll be interested to see if FOX makes a stand for them here.

Some on that network already did defend the CNN guy, but Fox is probably going to be pretty pro Trump for a while because as MSNBC and Newsweek have reported recently huge shake ups happened around there before and especially after the election.  Rumor is that Murdoch's sons were positioning to take over the network from their aging dad, make it more progressive, and install Megyn Kelly as their champion.  When Trump won the deals fell through and Kelly was shown the door.  This explains why the last chapters of her book are written as if she took part in "taking Trump down" and all that.  Really interesting stuff:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-truth-behind-megyn-kelly%e2%80%99s-nbc-deal/ar-BBy7FmW?ocid=spartanntp

 

Er, I am pretty sure she left on her own, even though Fox was offering her more money.  I can't say I blame her, a) because she has three young kids and will now have most evenings off, and b) Fox's brand has been badly damaged in the last year and she is smart enough to move away from that.

Could be, but that isn't the scuttlebutt going around.  I take the newsweek article with a grain of salt because they are the same "journalists" who were convinced Trump could never win so what do they really know anyway?  But Kelly did have a public feud with Trump, attempted to derail his campaign, lost a good chunk of her fanbase in the process and ended up at a network that doesn't even count.  If she did that by choice fine, but I suspect there is some merit to the newsweek piece. 
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: KevShmev on January 12, 2017, 08:18:26 PM
It's ridiculous to say that she tried to derail his campaign; she asked him a tough, legit question.  It's not her fault that he is a crybaby who can't handle tough questions. 

Why wouldn't she have done that by choice?  She is still getting reportedly at least 15 million dollars a year and gets evenings off to spend with her three young kids (which she has said for a while would be a priority when deciding on her next contract).  I'd say she chose wisely. 
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: pogoowner on January 12, 2017, 08:25:13 PM
It's ridiculous to say that she tried to derail his campaign; she asked him a tough, legit question.  It's not her fault that he is a crybaby who can't handle tough questions. 

Why wouldn't she have done that by choice?  She is still getting reportedly at least 15 million dollars a year and gets evenings off to spend with her three young kids (which she has said for a while would be a priority when deciding on her next contract).  I'd say she chose wisely. 
She's also leaving a workplace that, between Ailes and O'Reilly, has largely become known for sexual abuse. I certainly wouldn't want to be there if I were her.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: KevShmev on January 12, 2017, 08:35:33 PM

She's also leaving a workplace that, between Ailes and O'Reilly, has largely become known for sexual abuse. I certainly wouldn't want to be there if I were her.

Agree. That was what I was alluding to earlier when I said Fox's brand has been damaged. They have lost four of their most high profile women in the last year (Kelly, Greta Van Susteren, Gretchen Carlson and Andrea Tantaros), three of whom reported having been the victim of some type of sexual harassment from the big wigs at Fox.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: 7th on January 13, 2017, 12:00:12 AM

She's also leaving a workplace that, between Ailes and O'Reilly, has largely become known for sexual abuse. I certainly wouldn't want to be there if I were her.

Agree. That was what I was alluding to earlier when I said Fox's brand has been damaged. They have lost four of their most high profile women in the last year (Kelly, Greta Van Susteren, Gretchen Carlson and Andrea Tantaros), three of whom reported having been the victim of some type of sexual harassment from the big wigs at Fox.

Did you guys read the Newsweek article?  Not saying it's the gospel truth, but it makes sense out of some odd occurrences like her immediate departure.  In my opinion, she went up against Trump and old man Murdoch and she lost.  Her "legit question" during the debate strategically set a precedent for the Clinton campaign and liberal media to paint Trump as a misogynist which totally backfired and helped get him elected.  Kelly did it to add to her own reach which is sleazy.  Trump was the star of each debate, Kelly made a colossal error in upstaging the main attraction.  Rarely does that end well.       
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: KevShmev on January 13, 2017, 06:29:42 AM

Did you guys read the Newsweek article?

Yes.

In my opinion, she went up against Trump and old man Murdoch and she lost.     

You mean she dared speak out against the sexual harassment culture that exists at Fox, right?

Her "legit question" during the debate strategically set a precedent for the Clinton campaign and liberal media to paint Trump as a misogynist which totally backfired and helped get him elected.     

Trump was already being painted as a misogynist prior to that debate.


 Kelly did it to add to her own reach 

Agreed.  Kelly loves herself (and I probably would, too, if I made that much money and looked like that :lol), but her question was still legit and not at all out of bounds.


 Trump was the star of each debate, Kelly made a colossal error in upstaging the main attraction.  Rarely does that end well.     

That is a silly take.  It was a presidential debate, not a reality show. 

Kelly's error was thinking Trump would go after her for a day or two and then it'd be over.  She, and no one else, had any idea that his hardcore supporters would go out of their way to attack her and try to destroy her career.  That says a lot more about Trump and his hardcore base than it does about her. 

Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: cramx3 on January 13, 2017, 07:52:15 AM
Im more inclined to believe she left Fox because Foxnews has had some pretty bad press against them lately and as a female, that could look bad for her in some way (I don't think it should, but the perception can be a reality with the sexual harassment suits and whatnot at Foxnews) plus her drama with Trump. She probably just wanted something else.  Although I'd imagine kids and other things play a role as well.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: 7th on January 13, 2017, 11:35:28 AM

Did you guys read the Newsweek article?

Yes.

In my opinion, she went up against Trump and old man Murdoch and she lost.     

You mean she dared speak out against the sexual harassment culture that exists at Fox, right?

Her "legit question" during the debate strategically set a precedent for the Clinton campaign and liberal media to paint Trump as a misogynist which totally backfired and helped get him elected.     

Trump was already being painted as a misogynist prior to that debate.


 Kelly did it to add to her own reach 

Agreed.  Kelly loves herself (and I probably would, too, if I made that much money and looked like that :lol), but her question was still legit and not at all out of bounds.


 Trump was the star of each debate, Kelly made a colossal error in upstaging the main attraction.  Rarely does that end well.     

That is a silly take.  It was a presidential debate, not a reality show. 

Kelly's error was thinking Trump would go after her for a day or two and then it'd be over.  She, and no one else, had any idea that his hardcore supporters would go out of their way to attack her and try to destroy her career.  That says a lot more about Trump and his hardcore base than it does about her.

Just a couple of things:

1.  She didn't speak out about sexual harassment at Fox until it was in her best interest to do so.  So in a way she is complacent in the harassment herself.  The timing of the lawsuits also suggests that the harassment could have been more along the lines of people willfully fucking their way to the top then crying fowl when they found out the top isn't what they thought it would be.  Sometimes people are truly victims of harassment, sometimes they are willing participants in it in order to gain that leverage.  Either way, people best not fool around with their subordinates.  I am surprised Bill O'Reilly didn't "retire" after the Huddy settlement, but her case must have been pretty weak for her to take such a small settlement.  "Sexual Harassment Culture" sounds a bit hyperbolic.  I am sure Fox hands out the same anti-harassment policies as every other corporation does, and just like in every other large corporation a few people are going to be engaging in some inappropriate behaviors.  The problem really are the attorneys and legislators who have created an industry where a case of a skirt chasing boss is worth a percentage of potentially millions of dollars.  It's not about women's rights in the workplace, that's just the excuse, it is all about money and power.  It always is.  If it wasn't, sexual harassment would be a criminal offense not a civil one.  Personally I think maybe it should be and then people would think twice before harassing subordinates or employees.

2.  What we used to know as "presidential" is long gone, GHWB was probably the last truly professionally qualified president, so it really was more of a reality show.  The entire election process was damn entertaining on that level and 98% of the entertainment value was provided by Trump.  More people watched than voted.  Sad but true.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Ben_Jamin on January 13, 2017, 03:56:10 PM
Fake Media.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: jammindude on January 13, 2017, 07:55:49 PM
When the #GoldenGate story broke, I wasn't the least bit shocked.   I'm almost surprised it was ever reported.   The original "wolf of wall street" was a party to depravity?   It's like making a news story out of "Led Zeppelin sometimes had several groupies at once!"   ......REALLY????   Wait....I'm going to have a heart attack and die from that surprise.

One thing should be clear to BOTH sides at this point.    Trump is untouchable.   Literally.   There is NOTHING you could dig up on this guy that would stick, or would shock me in any way.    He is The Godfather.   It's that simple.   You could uncover video of him diddling a child, and he would look square in the camera and say with conviction, "This is fake news, it never happened."   And all it takes is for the hard core worshippers to sing his praises and repeat their reasons WHY they think he's right to create just a sliver of doubt in a decent cross section of the swayable public.....and viola.....we're on to the next controversy.   

I was talking to a hard right winger at work.   And I was just laughing at the irony that we went from being SHOCKED that someone we elected as president was outed as having "smoked but not inhaled" a joint during college, to OPENLY ELECTING a guy who we all know has done lines of blow off a hooker's patootie.   My co worker was like, "He really did that?"   I said, "Dude!  THIS IS DONALD TRUMP!!"   And he was like, "Oh yeah.....you're right...."   He was serious.   It had never occurred to him that this was a guy who practically invented the wolf of wall street stories! 

I just wish everyone would stop trying to create a scandal around the guy.   It's boring.    With Trump, you already know you're getting the love child of Gene Simmons, Rupert Murdoch, and Gina Rinehart.   So what is there you could dig up that we don't already know?

Was it Lincoln? who said the now famous, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time.  But you cannot fool all of the people all the time."     This is still true, but the problem is that when he said that, he could not have envisioned a world where it was no longer necessary to fool all of the people all of the time.   In the age of of the internet, fooling some of the people all of the time will suffice.    If you can get away with fooling some of the people all of the time, you can do *ANYTHING*.     And he has.   And he will continue to do so.   

You cannot touch Trump now.   Not possible.  He can do absolutely anything at all, and he will not be held accountable. 
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Ben_Jamin on January 16, 2017, 05:59:02 PM
Jam min dude, I agree about everyone trying to create a scandal. They're trying so hard yet they look dumb in the process.

What interests me more than any scandal about Trump, is with how the people within our country are acting. It's like we erased all these years to just go back to square one. And it's both sides basically throwing each others shit back and forth. Which doesn't help solve anything.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Stadler on January 17, 2017, 10:32:05 AM
When the #GoldenGate story broke, I wasn't the least bit shocked.   I'm almost surprised it was ever reported.   The original "wolf of wall street" was a party to depravity?   It's like making a news story out of "Led Zeppelin sometimes had several groupies at once!"   ......REALLY????   Wait....I'm going to have a heart attack and die from that surprise.

One thing should be clear to BOTH sides at this point.    Trump is untouchable.   Literally.   There is NOTHING you could dig up on this guy that would stick, or would shock me in any way.    He is The Godfather.   It's that simple.   You could uncover video of him diddling a child, and he would look square in the camera and say with conviction, "This is fake news, it never happened."   And all it takes is for the hard core worshippers to sing his praises and repeat their reasons WHY they think he's right to create just a sliver of doubt in a decent cross section of the swayable public.....and viola.....we're on to the next controversy.   

I was talking to a hard right winger at work.   And I was just laughing at the irony that we went from being SHOCKED that someone we elected as president was outed as having "smoked but not inhaled" a joint during college, to OPENLY ELECTING a guy who we all know has done lines of blow off a hooker's patootie.   My co worker was like, "He really did that?"   I said, "Dude!  THIS IS DONALD TRUMP!!"   And he was like, "Oh yeah.....you're right...."   He was serious.   It had never occurred to him that this was a guy who practically invented the wolf of wall street stories! 

I just wish everyone would stop trying to create a scandal around the guy.   It's boring.    With Trump, you already know you're getting the love child of Gene Simmons, Rupert Murdoch, and Gina Rinehart.   So what is there you could dig up that we don't already know?

Was it Lincoln? who said the now famous, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time.  But you cannot fool all of the people all the time."     This is still true, but the problem is that when he said that, he could not have envisioned a world where it was no longer necessary to fool all of the people all of the time.   In the age of of the internet, fooling some of the people all of the time will suffice.    If you can get away with fooling some of the people all of the time, you can do *ANYTHING*.     And he has.   And he will continue to do so.   

You cannot touch Trump now.   Not possible.  He can do absolutely anything at all, and he will not be held accountable.

I'm not sure I disagree with you, but that said, there still has to be some "reason" and some "practicality" on this.  I DON'T know that Trump did a line off a hooker's ass.   And here's why that's a problem:  because it SOUNDS like it could have happened is not "journalism".  That IS fake news, and we can't let one President - Teflon or not - undermine that.   It's not Trump's fault at all that this is happening, and though some will disagree with me, I don't even think it's his obligation to fix it.  It's the NEWS OUTLETS responsibility, and it's the PEOPLE of this country that have to hold them accountable.   

This is all a blurring of the lines over time. I've railed on and on about the "Jon Stewart fake news" thing, and how Stewart was creating a monster by hiding his (and his teams) lack of journalistic integrity (or if you wish, their position that they were not "newsmen" and therefore not obligated to follow the strict rules of journalistic integrity) behind the "oh! but it's a JOKE!" mantra.  Now it's just someone else hiding behind the "oh! but's it's ENTERTAINMENT!" mantra.  There's fundamentally no difference between the two.  NONE. 
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: eric42434224 on January 17, 2017, 10:55:10 AM
I think there is a very big fundamental difference between the two, and the difference is intent.
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: Stadler on January 17, 2017, 03:49:08 PM
I think there is a very big fundamental difference between the two, and the difference is intent.

Not sure I see that.  Stewart's take, stated on numerous occasions, is "entertainment" with a dash of enlightenment on the side.  The Buzzfeed clown's stated intent - which I heard directly in at least one interview - was "entertainment" with a dash of "the people have a right to know, and they have a right to decide for themselves", which isn't worlds apart from "enlightenment".
Title: Re: Buzzfeed article on Trump/Russia
Post by: eric42434224 on January 17, 2017, 04:12:43 PM
I think there is a very big fundamental difference between the two, and the difference is intent.

Not sure I see that.  Stewart's take, stated on numerous occasions, is "entertainment" with a dash of enlightenment on the side.  The Buzzfeed clown's stated intent - which I heard directly in at least one interview - was "entertainment" with a dash of "the people have a right to know, and they have a right to decide for themselves", which isn't worlds apart from "enlightenment".

I definitely see a difference, partly because I am not just using what they are saying about themselves.  That might be very different from their intent.