Utopia Talk - Politics - Russian bounties -made up

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed Apr 24 00:41:28 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Russian bounties -made up

Habebe
Member Mon Apr 19 15:53:20
So, apparently it was just another hoax to smear Trump.

Remember the "fact check" WaPo that gave him 4 pinnochios.

This entire thing was made up. Coincidentally reversed for Biden.

http://youtu.be/t6f2-70iy14

Rugian
Member Mon Apr 19 16:37:44
Surprise! The intelligence community that tw loves so much openly lied to him, and the establishment press that tw loves so much helped to sell the lie.

How many more examples do we need of this? The intelligence community and the media are ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE.

Paramount
Member Mon Apr 19 16:48:57
Trump shouldn’t have declared war on the media. You have to have a good relation to them.

tumbleweed
the wanderer Mon Apr 19 16:49:25
it doesn't say "made up", it doesn't say "hoax"

and how would it smear Trump?

even Pompeo brought it up w/ the Russians

Forwyn
Member Mon Apr 19 17:14:23
Running with the story, that was only ever given low credibility, was clearly reckless.

"and how would it smear Trump?"

Lol. Just look at this forum for a sample. "Putin fluffer". It was an already-tired line of low-info Democrats that Trump was a slave to Russia. And it was absolutely used as campaign fodder:

Biden criticizes Trump for inaction over reported Russian bounties

http://www...russian-bounties-idUSKBN23Z00B

Trump struggles as furor grows over reported Russian bounty offer to kill U.S. troops

http://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-06-28/trump-struggles-russian-bounty-kill-u-s-troops

Trump’s bond with veterans starts to fracture over Russian bounty plot
A series of military figures are lining up to condemn the president over his reported inaction after being briefed on the plot

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/02/trumps-bond-with-veterans-cracks-over-russian-bounty-plot

Habebe
Member Mon Apr 19 17:23:35
Tw, I used those terms. Running with a story that has zero hard evidence is something you would routinely criticize Trump for.

It was clearly meant to smear Trump.

tumbleweed
the wanderer Mon Apr 19 17:36:38
Trump -chose- to speculate it was a hoax by Adam Schiff (crazy theory), he -chose- to not care about it at all... Russian bounties on their own doesn't reflect on Trump, unless we're just accepting he was a Russian agent (which technically he was indistinguishable from)

he -could've- waited to be briefed on it & said the intel wasn't strong enough or something (like a responsible adult), but that was never his response

tumbleweed
the wanderer Mon Apr 19 17:38:33
why are we hearing only now evidence not strong enough? because Trump NEVER looked into it (or ANYTHING EVER), nor was he capable of ever being briefed

Habebe
Member Mon Apr 19 17:48:32
Trumps assertion was much closer than Biden's or the media's.

We are hearing evidence on it now because the powers that be colluded and conspired to makemit so.

What was the term they used a "shadow campaign" to "fortify" the election?

Hrothgar
Member Mon Apr 19 18:10:57
Can I just take this moment to say how much I despise any information outlet that is unabashedly partisan? That youtube video... God what a shit show of useless verbal puke.

From minute 1 twisting "low to moderate" intel confidence into = Totally made up and the anti-Trump news media are evil liars. 0 attempt to get input from opposing viewpoints.

And one more thing: How amazing to me that the Trump Cultists are full on antiwar hippies now when it comes to Afghanistan. Not so many years ago they were the biggest cheer leaders of "bomb the shit out of those rag heads".

Habebe
Member Mon Apr 19 18:16:13
Yeah....because Krystal and Saagar are Trump cultists......

Habebe
Member Mon Apr 19 18:18:36
They have warned about the russian bounty story atleast going back to the fake news reports on the Trump phone call.

Mainly, to be weary of unverified sources. "Biden drinks baby blood" says an unidentified source "close" to the Whitehouse....

Habebe
Member Mon Apr 19 18:18:36
They have warned about the russian bounty story atleast going back to the fake news reports on the Trump phone call.

Mainly, to be weary of unverified sources. "Biden drinks baby blood" says an unidentified source "close" to the Whitehouse....

tumbleweed
the wanderer Mon Apr 19 18:32:11
the OP video is obvious shit as he starts out saying the story was "false"... wrong

the intel DID exist, the news reported on it, the news might not have known level of confidence... Trump could have EASILY found out, but he never does that as it doesn't matter to him... what he wants to be true is what he decides is true

any anti-Russia stories were false automatically, he even said he hadn't been briefed on it when just speculating a hoax

Rugian
Member Mon Apr 19 18:38:01
Hrothgar

As long as you are opining about the evils of partisan media...how about the anti-Trump outlets that pushed a "low to moderate confidence" report as undisputed fact?

http://mob...ald/status/1384275789869293576

"And one more thing: How amazing to me that the Trump Cultists are full on antiwar hippies now when it comes to Afghanistan. Not so many years ago they were the biggest cheer leaders of "bomb the shit out of those rag heads"."

20 years IS a lot of years. Afghanistan has been a two-decade long investment with nothing to show for it. You'd have to be an idiot at this point to want to see it continue indefinitly.

Rugian
Member Mon Apr 19 18:41:00
And the original story proves just how corrupt our media has become. "Confirming" a story used to mean reaching out to multiple independent sources and getting their feedback on its veracity.

Now though, "confirming" a story means that the NYT and WaPo reach out to the same source, and then they use each other to confirm what they heard from that one source.

Pathetic.

Hrothgar
Member Mon Apr 19 18:47:18
Krystal and Saagar didn't say it was made up. They reported the intelligence community confidence in the info wasn't as high as before. There is a big difference there.

The right wing propaganda machine is the one jumping to the "It's all made up false flag yada yada" mumbo jubmo to feed off of your views and clicks.

Here is the actual story that the youtube channel is feeding 2-3 paragraphs off of. It's hardly as hard hitting black and white as the partisan propaganda outlets twist it to be.

http://www...ut-bounties-on-american-troops

Psaki reiterated the intelligence community’s low-to-moderate confidence in its assessment about possible Russian bounties but said that U.S. intelligence had “high confidence” in a separate assessment that Russian military intelligence officers “manage interaction with individuals in Afghan criminal networks” and that the “involvement of this... unit is consistent with Russia’s encouraging attacks against U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan.”

“I am unsurprised that the review led to a murky determination of low to moderate confidence. While it is clear that Russia and other adversaries have been providing assistance to their proxies in Afghanistan, identifying type and amount of such assistance with great specificity has been the persistent challenge,” Jason Campbell, an Afghanistan policy official in the Obama Pentagon, told The Daily Beast.

And one last thing. It's crazy how many unnamed sources an article like this has. I swear 75% of the quotes are all unnamed sources.

Habebe
Member Mon Apr 19 18:52:26
"Krystal and Saagar didn't say it was made up. They reported the intelligence community confidence in the info wasn't as high as before. There is a big difference there."

Weapons of mass destruction.

Habebe
Member Mon Apr 19 18:54:40
The "Intel was there" means "someone said"

How is this different from.Trump.saying "Someone said" which he did , a lot. (Paraphrasing)

tumbleweed
the wanderer Mon Apr 19 18:59:12
because it WAS a real thing in the intel community

how else can they have low to moderate confidence in it?

Trump requires no one saying anything to come up with his claims

this revelation in NO WAY defends Trump's response, and the original story in NO WAY was anti-Trump, he made it so by just being a typical ignorant lying fraud

NOTHING prevented him from actually learning facts & using those to support his case other than him being incapable of doing so as he's an unfit toddler fraud

Habebe
Member Mon Apr 19 20:37:32
"because it WAS a real thing in the intel community

how else can they have low to moderate confidence in it?"

Uhm, a few random people's words on it with zero hard evidence.

Trump could probably find some random people to say whatever he wants to.

"this revelation in NO WAY defends Trump's response, and the original story in NO WAY was anti-Trump, he made it so by just being a typical ignorant lying fraud"

It absolutely does. He was pretty close. There evidence amounts to the word of unverified random people. How is that different from Trump hearing something from Breitbart?

Habebe
Member Mon Apr 19 20:42:38
Basically they latched on to a rumor and tries to make it news.

Forwyn
Member Mon Apr 19 20:43:18
1. The media did not report on "low to moderate" confidence in 2020. They immediately used it to eviscerate Trump, who is too retarded to have properly defended himself.

2. "Low to moderate confidence" means chatter with no backing info. This is not reportable news, certainly not something that deserved to be leaked - I note that the dictator of 2020 didn't have any faggots deservedly shot, and most definitely not strong enough to be campaign fodder.

And yet...it was.

3. Even if the Russians had done this, it is not some absolutely insane geopolitical move; we have very recently been killing Russians and enabling the killers of Russians in Syria. We have books and films about our Russian-killing and Russian kill-enabling in Afghanistan.

"How amazing to me that the Trump Cultists are full on antiwar hippies now when it comes to Afghanistan."

The anti-war wing of the GOP has been budding since at least 2008 with Ron Paul. There was significant opposition to Libyan, Syrian, and Yemeni intervention, and Trump was cheered for ending illicit aid to Syrian headchoppers by all but Biden neolibs and Cotton neocons. Virtually anyone who proposes phased drawdowns to avoid whining about "reckless exits" gets media points (if they had the right letter in front of their name, at least).

Habebe
Member Mon Apr 19 20:43:19
Or it was entirely planted made up story. Either way....fake news.

tumbleweed
the wanderer Mon Apr 19 21:56:36
"There evidence amounts to the word of unverified random people"

i assume you are referring to the media reporting it? if so, the MASSIVE difference is media does NOT trust any dink who tweets at them, they CARE about their own reputation, they think about the trustworthiness of the source & seek confirmation
(& this is NOT a made up story, it can't be... unless you mean whatever the original sources led the intel community to analyze it... even still, there's NOTHING supporting made-up hoax)

whereas Trump tells totally obvious made-up lies all the time (& his cult couldn't care less for whatever weird reason)... so NO comparison between Trump & any media that cares about reputation

--------

"The media did not report on "low to moderate" confidence in 2020"

who says the media knew it?

& i'm not going to research every article, but a June 30th article:
----
“The president called this a hoax publicly. Nothing in the briefing that we have just received led me to believe it is a hoax,” Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, told reporters after leaving the briefing.

“There may be different judgments as to the level of credibility [of the reports], but there was no assertion that the information we had was a hoax,” he added.

http://www...efing-on-russian-bounties.html

-------

that suggests some doubt to me

there is NO defense for Trump's initial reaction to say it was a hoax based on NOTHING, he was reflexively defensive on Russia 100.0% of the time

it only became an anti-Trump story because of -how he reacted to it-, not because of the story itself

Habebe
Member Mon Apr 19 22:10:12
"media does NOT trust any dink who tweets at them, they CARE about their own reputation"

The lie detector has determined, that was a lie....

"there is NO defense for Trump's initial reaction to say it was a hoax based on NOTHING, he was reflexively defensive on Russia 100.0% of the time"

Justifiably. Russia is to the left what Antics is to the right. A boogeyman who is responsible for everything.

And in this case, Trumps reflexive response was more.accurate than everyone else's.

Your argument seems to be that his relative accuracy is purely an accident.

tumbleweed
the wanderer Mon Apr 19 22:17:00
"Trumps reflexive response was more.accurate than everyone else's"

really? that they were helping Hillary not him in 2016, that they weren't helping him in 2020, that they didn't poison anyone, that they didn't shoot down a plane... his zero-thought zero-research just-side-with-them guesses were accurate?

==========

"The lie detector has determined, that was a lie"

then your detector is broken... if media was as carefree with the facts as Trump, they would have the reputation of the Nat'l Enquirer, Alex Jones or OAN (i realize they -do- have that reputation in the cult, but the cult finds a completely obvious fraud trustworthy)

tumbleweed
the wanderer Mon Apr 19 22:22:25
also... saying that 'hoax' is more accurate than a 'low-to-moderate' confidence item is debatable

however, Trump had 100% access to the intel & could've given informed answers... media does not... there is no excuse for his response on this or pretty much anything

(& he in fact -had- been briefed, but it was in writing so obviously he didn't read it... totally unfit)

Habebe
Member Mon Apr 19 22:22:53
I meant in the idea that the russian bounties were not true.

As for the media...

http://www...c0-4901-9069-e26b21c283a9.html

Most Americans don't trust mainstream news. Barely the majority of Democrats ( 52 or 57%, I forget)

Sam Adams
Member Mon Apr 19 23:44:30
"media does NOT trust any dink who tweets at them, they CARE about their own reputation"

Media exists for only 1 of 2 reasons.

1) to enhance the reputation of their master

And/or

2) to make money

Their own reputation is irrelevant so long as it doesnt impact 1 or 2.

Sam Adams
Member Tue Apr 20 00:06:12
"Most Americans don't trust mainstream news."

You should rarely trust any journalist. Most are graduates of fuzzy studies degrees... lacking in scientific rigor, logic, and most importantly, math. If those people had big brains, they would be working for microsoft or space x, not cnn.

tumbleweed
the wanderer Tue Apr 20 00:11:02
"I meant in the idea that the russian bounties were not true"

nothing shows it to be false & the intelligence report DID exist so any news story saying it was from an intel report is stating a fact (& most likely they did do that)

habebe
Member Tue Apr 20 00:13:17
Sam, Well, yes generally. But as Jergul pointed out before ( and turned out to be true) most people have moderate trust in "their" news sources.

mainstream media has the connotation in the US as being DNC backed woke news.

Sam Adams
Member Tue Apr 20 00:14:26
"& the intelligence report DID exist"

And why would we possibly trust a journalist to understand an intelligence report?

tumbleweed
the wanderer Tue Apr 20 00:24:04
"Top US general says Russian bounty intelligence 'wasn't proved' but 'proved enough to worry me'"
~ CNN - July 8, 2020

"U.S. commander: Intel still hasn't established Russia paid Taliban 'bounties' to kill U.S. troops"
~ NBC - Sept 14, 2020

so... accurate

unlike... "hoax!"

tumbleweed
the wanderer Tue Apr 20 00:29:31
"Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP. Possibly another fabricated Russia Hoax, maybe by the Fake News @nytimesbooks, wanting to make Republicans look bad!!!"
~ retard

even after being briefed, he knows nothing... obviously it was NOT a hoax by NY Times (how the fuck would that even work)... if he could pay attention for more than a second he would have heard the sourcing was people in Afghanistan

& how does it make Republicans look bad...

fucking.moron.

habebe
Member Tue Apr 20 00:42:38
""Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP. Possibly another fabricated Russia Hoax, maybe by the Fake News @nytimesbooks, wanting to make Republicans look bad!!!"

Accurate.They didn't find it credible, and sounds like a hoax.

tumbleweed
the wanderer Tue Apr 20 01:54:28
no, that’s Trump lying... they would have given a confidence rating to him (and they -did- report it to him in his written brief)

and I am supremely confident they didn’t say “it may be a hoax by the New York Times”, it was supposedly Taliban prisoners or something as original source

and while his “not credible” is at least in the ballpark, given he sandwiches it in his idiotspeak nonsense, it’s not surprising no one can trust any of it

tumbleweed
the wanderer Tue Apr 20 02:05:55
also note the point of the tweet is not to say “I got briefed and there is insufficient evidence” or whatever, it’s just to give an excuse of why he knew nothing about it when initially crazily guessing it was a hoax, and then to again crazily guess it was a hoax by the NY Times

(there is no chance it was a hoax by The NY Times, that doesn’t make any sense at all, and no one would’ve suggested it to him)

he is and remains a fucking unfit lying moron who should not be put on the air (as Fox News again did tonight)

TheChildren
Member Tue Apr 20 11:16:52
rofl all ur news is fake. didnt u get da memo?

http://twi...tatus/1383786846035922945?s=20

lol

show deleted posts

Habebe Member	Mon Apr 19 15:53:20 So, apparently it was just another hoax to smear Trump. Remember the "fact check" WaPo that gave him 4 pinnochios. This entire thing was made up. Coincidentally reversed for Biden. http://youtu.be/t6f2-70iy14
Rugian Member	Mon Apr 19 16:37:44 Surprise! The intelligence community that tw loves so much openly lied to him, and the establishment press that tw loves so much helped to sell the lie. How many more examples do we need of this? The intelligence community and the media are ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE.
Paramount Member	Mon Apr 19 16:48:57 Trump shouldn’t have declared war on the media. You have to have a good relation to them.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Apr 19 16:49:25 it doesn't say "made up", it doesn't say "hoax" and how would it smear Trump? even Pompeo brought it up w/ the Russians
Forwyn Member	Mon Apr 19 17:14:23 Running with the story, that was only ever given low credibility, was clearly reckless. "and how would it smear Trump?" Lol. Just look at this forum for a sample. "Putin fluffer". It was an already-tired line of low-info Democrats that Trump was a slave to Russia. And it was absolutely used as campaign fodder: Biden criticizes Trump for inaction over reported Russian bounties http://www...russian-bounties-idUSKBN23Z00B Trump struggles as furor grows over reported Russian bounty offer to kill U.S. troops http://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-06-28/trump-struggles-russian-bounty-kill-u-s-troops Trump’s bond with veterans starts to fracture over Russian bounty plot A series of military figures are lining up to condemn the president over his reported inaction after being briefed on the plot http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/02/trumps-bond-with-veterans-cracks-over-russian-bounty-plot
Habebe Member	Mon Apr 19 17:23:35 Tw, I used those terms. Running with a story that has zero hard evidence is something you would routinely criticize Trump for. It was clearly meant to smear Trump.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Apr 19 17:36:38 Trump -chose- to speculate it was a hoax by Adam Schiff (crazy theory), he -chose- to not care about it at all... Russian bounties on their own doesn't reflect on Trump, unless we're just accepting he was a Russian agent (which technically he was indistinguishable from) he -could've- waited to be briefed on it & said the intel wasn't strong enough or something (like a responsible adult), but that was never his response
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Apr 19 17:38:33 why are we hearing only now evidence not strong enough? because Trump NEVER looked into it (or ANYTHING EVER), nor was he capable of ever being briefed
Habebe Member	Mon Apr 19 17:48:32 Trumps assertion was much closer than Biden's or the media's. We are hearing evidence on it now because the powers that be colluded and conspired to makemit so. What was the term they used a "shadow campaign" to "fortify" the election?
Hrothgar Member	Mon Apr 19 18:10:57 Can I just take this moment to say how much I despise any information outlet that is unabashedly partisan? That youtube video... God what a shit show of useless verbal puke. From minute 1 twisting "low to moderate" intel confidence into = Totally made up and the anti-Trump news media are evil liars. 0 attempt to get input from opposing viewpoints. And one more thing: How amazing to me that the Trump Cultists are full on antiwar hippies now when it comes to Afghanistan. Not so many years ago they were the biggest cheer leaders of "bomb the shit out of those rag heads".
Habebe Member	Mon Apr 19 18:16:13 Yeah....because Krystal and Saagar are Trump cultists......
Habebe Member	Mon Apr 19 18:18:36 They have warned about the russian bounty story atleast going back to the fake news reports on the Trump phone call. Mainly, to be weary of unverified sources. "Biden drinks baby blood" says an unidentified source "close" to the Whitehouse....
Habebe Member	Mon Apr 19 18:18:36 They have warned about the russian bounty story atleast going back to the fake news reports on the Trump phone call. Mainly, to be weary of unverified sources. "Biden drinks baby blood" says an unidentified source "close" to the Whitehouse....
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Apr 19 18:32:11 the OP video is obvious shit as he starts out saying the story was "false"... wrong the intel DID exist, the news reported on it, the news might not have known level of confidence... Trump could have EASILY found out, but he never does that as it doesn't matter to him... what he wants to be true is what he decides is true any anti-Russia stories were false automatically, he even said he hadn't been briefed on it when just speculating a hoax
Rugian Member	Mon Apr 19 18:38:01 Hrothgar As long as you are opining about the evils of partisan media...how about the anti-Trump outlets that pushed a "low to moderate confidence" report as undisputed fact? http://mob...ald/status/1384275789869293576 "And one more thing: How amazing to me that the Trump Cultists are full on antiwar hippies now when it comes to Afghanistan. Not so many years ago they were the biggest cheer leaders of "bomb the shit out of those rag heads"." 20 years IS a lot of years. Afghanistan has been a two-decade long investment with nothing to show for it. You'd have to be an idiot at this point to want to see it continue indefinitly.
Rugian Member	Mon Apr 19 18:41:00 And the original story proves just how corrupt our media has become. "Confirming" a story used to mean reaching out to multiple independent sources and getting their feedback on its veracity. Now though, "confirming" a story means that the NYT and WaPo reach out to the same source, and then they use each other to confirm what they heard from that one source. Pathetic.
Hrothgar Member	Mon Apr 19 18:47:18 Krystal and Saagar didn't say it was made up. They reported the intelligence community confidence in the info wasn't as high as before. There is a big difference there. The right wing propaganda machine is the one jumping to the "It's all made up false flag yada yada" mumbo jubmo to feed off of your views and clicks. Here is the actual story that the youtube channel is feeding 2-3 paragraphs off of. It's hardly as hard hitting black and white as the partisan propaganda outlets twist it to be. http://www...ut-bounties-on-american-troops Psaki reiterated the intelligence community’s low-to-moderate confidence in its assessment about possible Russian bounties but said that U.S. intelligence had “high confidence” in a separate assessment that Russian military intelligence officers “manage interaction with individuals in Afghan criminal networks” and that the “involvement of this... unit is consistent with Russia’s encouraging attacks against U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan.” “I am unsurprised that the review led to a murky determination of low to moderate confidence. While it is clear that Russia and other adversaries have been providing assistance to their proxies in Afghanistan, identifying type and amount of such assistance with great specificity has been the persistent challenge,” Jason Campbell, an Afghanistan policy official in the Obama Pentagon, told The Daily Beast. And one last thing. It's crazy how many unnamed sources an article like this has. I swear 75% of the quotes are all unnamed sources.
Habebe Member	Mon Apr 19 18:52:26 "Krystal and Saagar didn't say it was made up. They reported the intelligence community confidence in the info wasn't as high as before. There is a big difference there." Weapons of mass destruction.
Habebe Member	Mon Apr 19 18:54:40 The "Intel was there" means "someone said" How is this different from.Trump.saying "Someone said" which he did , a lot. (Paraphrasing)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Apr 19 18:59:12 because it WAS a real thing in the intel community how else can they have low to moderate confidence in it? Trump requires no one saying anything to come up with his claims this revelation in NO WAY defends Trump's response, and the original story in NO WAY was anti-Trump, he made it so by just being a typical ignorant lying fraud NOTHING prevented him from actually learning facts & using those to support his case other than him being incapable of doing so as he's an unfit toddler fraud
Habebe Member	Mon Apr 19 20:37:32 "because it WAS a real thing in the intel community how else can they have low to moderate confidence in it?" Uhm, a few random people's words on it with zero hard evidence. Trump could probably find some random people to say whatever he wants to. "this revelation in NO WAY defends Trump's response, and the original story in NO WAY was anti-Trump, he made it so by just being a typical ignorant lying fraud" It absolutely does. He was pretty close. There evidence amounts to the word of unverified random people. How is that different from Trump hearing something from Breitbart?
Habebe Member	Mon Apr 19 20:42:38 Basically they latched on to a rumor and tries to make it news.
Forwyn Member	Mon Apr 19 20:43:18 1. The media did not report on "low to moderate" confidence in 2020. They immediately used it to eviscerate Trump, who is too retarded to have properly defended himself. 2. "Low to moderate confidence" means chatter with no backing info. This is not reportable news, certainly not something that deserved to be leaked - I note that the dictator of 2020 didn't have any faggots deservedly shot, and most definitely not strong enough to be campaign fodder. And yet...it was. 3. Even if the Russians had done this, it is not some absolutely insane geopolitical move; we have very recently been killing Russians and enabling the killers of Russians in Syria. We have books and films about our Russian-killing and Russian kill-enabling in Afghanistan. "How amazing to me that the Trump Cultists are full on antiwar hippies now when it comes to Afghanistan." The anti-war wing of the GOP has been budding since at least 2008 with Ron Paul. There was significant opposition to Libyan, Syrian, and Yemeni intervention, and Trump was cheered for ending illicit aid to Syrian headchoppers by all but Biden neolibs and Cotton neocons. Virtually anyone who proposes phased drawdowns to avoid whining about "reckless exits" gets media points (if they had the right letter in front of their name, at least).
Habebe Member	Mon Apr 19 20:43:19 Or it was entirely planted made up story. Either way....fake news.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Apr 19 21:56:36 "There evidence amounts to the word of unverified random people" i assume you are referring to the media reporting it? if so, the MASSIVE difference is media does NOT trust any dink who tweets at them, they CARE about their own reputation, they think about the trustworthiness of the source & seek confirmation (& this is NOT a made up story, it can't be... unless you mean whatever the original sources led the intel community to analyze it... even still, there's NOTHING supporting made-up hoax) whereas Trump tells totally obvious made-up lies all the time (& his cult couldn't care less for whatever weird reason)... so NO comparison between Trump & any media that cares about reputation -------- "The media did not report on "low to moderate" confidence in 2020" who says the media knew it? & i'm not going to research every article, but a June 30th article: ---- “The president called this a hoax publicly. Nothing in the briefing that we have just received led me to believe it is a hoax,” Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, told reporters after leaving the briefing. “There may be different judgments as to the level of credibility [of the reports], but there was no assertion that the information we had was a hoax,” he added. http://www...efing-on-russian-bounties.html ------- that suggests some doubt to me there is NO defense for Trump's initial reaction to say it was a hoax based on NOTHING, he was reflexively defensive on Russia 100.0% of the time it only became an anti-Trump story because of -how he reacted to it-, not because of the story itself
Habebe Member	Mon Apr 19 22:10:12 "media does NOT trust any dink who tweets at them, they CARE about their own reputation" The lie detector has determined, that was a lie.... "there is NO defense for Trump's initial reaction to say it was a hoax based on NOTHING, he was reflexively defensive on Russia 100.0% of the time" Justifiably. Russia is to the left what Antics is to the right. A boogeyman who is responsible for everything. And in this case, Trumps reflexive response was more.accurate than everyone else's. Your argument seems to be that his relative accuracy is purely an accident.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Apr 19 22:17:00 "Trumps reflexive response was more.accurate than everyone else's" really? that they were helping Hillary not him in 2016, that they weren't helping him in 2020, that they didn't poison anyone, that they didn't shoot down a plane... his zero-thought zero-research just-side-with-them guesses were accurate? ========== "The lie detector has determined, that was a lie" then your detector is broken... if media was as carefree with the facts as Trump, they would have the reputation of the Nat'l Enquirer, Alex Jones or OAN (i realize they -do- have that reputation in the cult, but the cult finds a completely obvious fraud trustworthy)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Apr 19 22:22:25 also... saying that 'hoax' is more accurate than a 'low-to-moderate' confidence item is debatable however, Trump had 100% access to the intel & could've given informed answers... media does not... there is no excuse for his response on this or pretty much anything (& he in fact -had- been briefed, but it was in writing so obviously he didn't read it... totally unfit)
Habebe Member	Mon Apr 19 22:22:53 I meant in the idea that the russian bounties were not true. As for the media... http://www...c0-4901-9069-e26b21c283a9.html Most Americans don't trust mainstream news. Barely the majority of Democrats ( 52 or 57%, I forget)
Sam Adams Member	Mon Apr 19 23:44:30 "media does NOT trust any dink who tweets at them, they CARE about their own reputation" Media exists for only 1 of 2 reasons. 1) to enhance the reputation of their master And/or 2) to make money Their own reputation is irrelevant so long as it doesnt impact 1 or 2.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Apr 20 00:06:12 "Most Americans don't trust mainstream news." You should rarely trust any journalist. Most are graduates of fuzzy studies degrees... lacking in scientific rigor, logic, and most importantly, math. If those people had big brains, they would be working for microsoft or space x, not cnn.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Apr 20 00:11:02 "I meant in the idea that the russian bounties were not true" nothing shows it to be false & the intelligence report DID exist so any news story saying it was from an intel report is stating a fact (& most likely they did do that)
habebe Member	Tue Apr 20 00:13:17 Sam, Well, yes generally. But as Jergul pointed out before ( and turned out to be true) most people have moderate trust in "their" news sources. mainstream media has the connotation in the US as being DNC backed woke news.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Apr 20 00:14:26 "& the intelligence report DID exist" And why would we possibly trust a journalist to understand an intelligence report?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Apr 20 00:24:04 "Top US general says Russian bounty intelligence 'wasn't proved' but 'proved enough to worry me'" ~ CNN - July 8, 2020 "U.S. commander: Intel still hasn't established Russia paid Taliban 'bounties' to kill U.S. troops" ~ NBC - Sept 14, 2020 so... accurate unlike... "hoax!"
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Apr 20 00:29:31 "Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP. Possibly another fabricated Russia Hoax, maybe by the Fake News @nytimesbooks, wanting to make Republicans look bad!!!" ~ retard even after being briefed, he knows nothing... obviously it was NOT a hoax by NY Times (how the fuck would that even work)... if he could pay attention for more than a second he would have heard the sourcing was people in Afghanistan & how does it make Republicans look bad... fucking.moron.
habebe Member	Tue Apr 20 00:42:38 ""Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP. Possibly another fabricated Russia Hoax, maybe by the Fake News @nytimesbooks, wanting to make Republicans look bad!!!" Accurate.They didn't find it credible, and sounds like a hoax.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Apr 20 01:54:28 no, that’s Trump lying... they would have given a confidence rating to him (and they -did- report it to him in his written brief) and I am supremely confident they didn’t say “it may be a hoax by the New York Times”, it was supposedly Taliban prisoners or something as original source and while his “not credible” is at least in the ballpark, given he sandwiches it in his idiotspeak nonsense, it’s not surprising no one can trust any of it
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Apr 20 02:05:55 also note the point of the tweet is not to say “I got briefed and there is insufficient evidence” or whatever, it’s just to give an excuse of why he knew nothing about it when initially crazily guessing it was a hoax, and then to again crazily guess it was a hoax by the NY Times (there is no chance it was a hoax by The NY Times, that doesn’t make any sense at all, and no one would’ve suggested it to him) he is and remains a fucking unfit lying moron who should not be put on the air (as Fox News again did tonight)
TheChildren Member	Tue Apr 20 11:16:52 rofl all ur news is fake. didnt u get da memo? http://twi...tatus/1383786846035922945?s=20 lol
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: