Russia Won't Go Away

They have a much larger history of being correct.

You’re talking about the Russia/Trump narrative getting out of hand. Trump can release the raw intel and clear this up whenever he wants.

I see your point. But by erasing the distinction between the dissemination of honest errors and propaganda–ie, by calling both ‘fake news’–I think far more damage is done vis a vis the potential for abuse.

Anyway, I sense we’re rapidly approaching that ‘agree to disagree’ point.

1 Like

You have no idea if this is true

Weren’t you just complaining he gave Intel away to the Russians?

HA you can’t have it both ways. If he releases you idiots will just criticize him for undermining the US intelligence

What does this mean?

If he releases classified intel when he’s not supposed to through backroom channels with Russia media present, it’s bad.

If he released classified intel to the American public because he wants to be open and honest, it’s still stupid, but at least it serves a purpose.

You just called pfury an idiot in the post above and yet you can’t comprehend the meaning of Mufasa’s sentence? Classic.

I get what you mean, but it seems like currently our options are for people like yourself to change their opinion of what “fake news” means, or to continue to beat your head into the ground arguing with people who blame the MSM for America’s woes.

It doesn’t seem realistic that you’ll convince Trumpers to change after an entire election and then some of demonizing the media.

1 Like

Oh look nice retraction and definitely not fake news

http://archive.is/BHEwu#selection-2313.0-2326.0

Edit : Even the correction is misleading by calling ODNI an intelligence agency. It is an oversight & policy body and does not collect information.-from Twitter

I’d post the WSJ article directly but they’ve caught on to the trick of getting around the paywall.


Before the 2016 presidential election, a longtime Republican opposition researcher mounted an independent campaign to obtain emails he believed were stolen from Hillary Clinton’s private server, likely by Russian hackers.

In conversations with members of his circle and with others he tried to recruit to help him, the GOP operative, Peter W. Smith, implied he was working with retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, at the time a senior adviser to then-candidate Donald Trump.

“He said, ‘I’m talking to Michael Flynn about this—if you find anything, can you let me know?’” said Eric York, a computer-security expert from Atlanta who searched hacker forums on Mr. Smith’s behalf for people who might have access to the emails.

1 Like

None of this is bad or damaging to Trump. Doesn’t matter what everyone around him or working for him did.

Unless you have video evidence of Trump rubbing Putin off with one hand and hacking election machines with the other during the actual election time not before or after and hacking the state that Trump voted in does it matter.

If you don’t have that you have nothing.

1 Like

H:

I would suggest that even this kind of evidence would not matter to his base.

It is also why I believe that some external force will never, ever lead to his downfall.

Maybe not “downfall” in the traditional sense, but it’s good to keep in mind he got destroyed in the popular vote this past election (to arguably the worst Dem national candidate in my lifetime). Without HRC to demonize, he’s going to bleed support in quite a few demographics (especially people my age).

If the Dems put up a half decent candidate, I don’t see a way he wins reelection without a serious boost to the economy in 2019.

No amount of evidence will ever convince anti-trumpers that Trump-Russia and election hacking is fake.

Not even the retraction on the consensus amongst the intelligence community will change anything

I believe the Trump-Russia hacking connection is almost certainly fake, and I definitely qualify as an anti-Trumper.

Theory busted.

That includes the fake news of Russia meddling in the election based on intelligence reports

We went from 17 intelligence agencies all in agreement to :

the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
National Security Agency.

The ODNI doesn’t even count. As said earlier they’re job is oversight and they don’t collect data. so 3 really

So just the largest intel agencies on the planet. Why would anyone trust them?

1 Like

See, I disagree with this–I believe intent to deceive is absolutely important. Or, if you prefer, intent to sensationalize over and above its actual rational importance.

If we were to take your literal definition that things must be PROVED TRUE or be fake, that would qualify the vast majority of published scientific research studies as “fake” because a large portion of these published hypotheses and models will never be ultimately confirmed. This to me is absurd and an analogous situation with news is equally absurd.

Reporting a situation with incomplete information should not be de facto fake news if it turns out to be wrong.

Edit–spelling

2 Likes

I’m more along the lines that once something is proven false, it was fake news. I assume journalists have done their due diligence until it has been shown otherwise.