Trump - Russian connections....FAR DEEPER than anyone ever imagined

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Journalists can publish fake news as long as they say it's fake, and that somehow makes it not fake.

That is not what I said. Journalists can publish real news, even if the real news is about false or unverified claims. For example, a certain Secretary of State claimed that she had no confidential emails on her server. There was evidence that was untrue. In reporting this story, was the media propagating "fake news" because her claim was false? I realize that because English is not inflected like Russian, it can be difficult for Russian speakers to identify which word an adjective is modifying.

I was specific in my qualification earlier in the thread.
You said clearly that journalists are ok to publish fake news if they say it's fake news.

I asked:

Are you claiming that if a journalist publishes something that they believe to be fake, with a note saying 'I think this is fake' that they are not engaging in fake news.

You replied:

Correct. Apparently there is no journalism where you come from

LINK to post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You keep moving your arguments around.

At some point you will have to state what you really think and stop changing or making things up on the fly.

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

As you have probably noticed, it is useless arguing logically with some people. I'm equally skeptical about the specific contents of the dossier, but blackmail relies on a claim's plausibility. The Royal Family has never bothered to refute David Ikes' claim that they are shape-shifting alien reptiles. Trump, however, seems to me to be over-reacting to the very existence of this dossier. His first impulse was to accuse the intelligence community of "leaking" it, rather than laughing it off with something like "The lies are so ludicrous even Crooked Hillary didn't bother to use them." It will be interesting to see where this goes.

a reply to: UKTruth

You keep moving your arguments around.

No, you just refuse to understand them. What do you make of the example I provided? Were the Clinton email hearings fake news because Clinton lied?

Wait. So, Clinton sells Russia uranium. Obama says he will have more flexibility after his election. However, Trump is in bed with them?

www.reuters.com...

Look. If the evidence that Trump was in bed with Russia was there it would have been in the media. Just like the dozen false accusations of rape.

These stories are all created so no one knows about real issues like Syria and the Chinese in the South Sea. Wake up.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

As you have probably noticed, it is useless arguing logically with some people. I'm equally skeptical about the specific contents of the dossier, but blackmail relies on a claim's plausibility. The Royal Family has never bothered to refute David Ikes' claim that they are shape-shifting alien reptiles. Trump, however, seems to me to be over-reacting to the very existence of this dossier. His first impulse was to accuse the intelligence community of "leaking" it, rather than laughing it off with something like "The lies are so ludicrous even Crooked Hillary didn't bother to use them." It will be interesting to see where this goes.

Blackmail does not rely on a claims plausibility. That is another logic fail.
If Russia tries to blackmail Trump based on 'plausibility' and he knows damn well he never did what it's said he did, then it's hardly going to work.
Blackmail is dependent first and foremost on something having actually taken place.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

As you have probably noticed, it is useless arguing logically with some people.

If only this were the mupit, I'd name the 3 individuals in this entire website whom are the biggest waste of time for exactly what you're saying. Hint: all 3 are available in just the past 2 pages!

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

You keep moving your arguments around.

No, you just refuse to understand them. What do you make of the example I provided? Were the Clinton email hearings fake news because Clinton lied?

I've laid out the question and answer - it is pretty clear.
The fact that there were Clinton email hearings was not fake news, just like the fact there is a 'dossier' is not fake news.
No one is arguing that, so your straw man is not working.

The reporting of the contents of the document is fake news, which Buzzfeed did - admitting that they had already verified some of the document to be fake - and CNN did by linking to Buzzfeed's content. Fake News.

a reply to: UKTruth

Blackmail is dependent first and foremost on something having actually taken place.

Logical fail. Evidence can be fabricated. What is important is that people believe the fabricated evidence. That's based on plausibility. If a woman tears her blouse and threatens to yell rape, are you going to laugh at her? Explain to the policeman that it was "fake rape?" Or are you going to tell her to chill and do what she asks? That's how blackmail works.

a reply to: UKTruth

The reporting of the contents of the document is fake news

Why?

a reply to: UKTruth

Right. Fictional gossip rumor mill material floats around on teh Internet, its not news, just yes there IS fictional gossip rumor mill material on teh Interwebs. You go and make it "The News" (clearly timed to torpedo Trump's first press conference) and the whole effort is thus FAKE NEWS (of the subversive character assassination variety). Well, the dossier was already that to begin with, essentially. There could have been some way by which CNN & BuzzFeed may have come to report it where it would not have been, but they clearly orchestrated it for the political effect. So CNN/Buzzfeed became what the dossier was from all along: subversive rumor mill gossip rag material (FAKE NEWS). And all the other news followed their lead in time for the press conference, if I'm not mistaken.

How even more funny my little narrative there becomes if it really was a 4chan troll project in its origins!

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Blackmail is dependent first and foremost on something having actually taken place.

Logical fail. Evidence can be fabricated. What is important is that people believe the fabricated evidence. That's based on plausibility. If a woman tears her blouse and threatens to yell rape, are you going to laugh at her? Explain to the policeman that it was "fake rape?" Or are you going to tell her to chill and do what she asks? That's how blackmail works.

Rubbish.

In your example, which is completely different anyway, I would tell this woman to get lost as any normal person would do.

With the actual example we are talking about, you are suggesting that Russia fabricate a video of Trump with Russian hookers peeing on a bed. You think a doctored video of that is going to work for blackmail if it never happened and Trump knows it never happened? You have an over active imagination and a poor grasp of the subject. Again, blackmail is not going to work if you did not actually do what the person is trying to blackmail you on.

Your logic fail would suggest that every person in govt. is compromised because at any time they could get a call from Russia saying; implement this policy or we're going to pretend we have a video of you. What utter nonsense.

No wonder you are continually looking for reds under the bed, you've lost all objectivity.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

The reporting of the contents of the document is fake news

Why?

..because you create news based on a fake document.
Fake News. Simple.

a reply to: UKTruth

With the actual example we are talking about, you are suggesting that Russia fabricate a video of Trump with Russian hookers peeing on a bed.

Not at all. Please read my posts. There are many, many ways to create scandalous materials. And Russia is not the only one who can do it. Remember, Trump has enemies in Hollywood. It wouldn't be hard for them to crank out a Trump porno. More likely, though, there are wiretaps of Trump conspiring to break various laws while making business deals, or making or accepting bribes. All very plausible.

a reply to: UKTruth

..because you create news based on a fake document.
Fake News. Simple.

So Clinton's testimony was fake. Fake News. Simple.

a reply to: muse7

let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly - you're saying that Trump's ties to Russia are "deeper than anyone imagined" because he's done business with them, and is adding people to his cabinet that will be able to negotiate further trading deals between Russia and the United States in the future?

how is this a revelation? how is this unexpected given his business ventures?

why is this a big deal to you? did they find one of these Russian dudes skyping Trump on election day as they were running hacking scripts on official state counting machines?

does the united states not currently have *ANY* business relationships with Russia that look exactly the same as Trump's business relationships do?

originally posted by: UKTruth

You keep moving your arguments around.

That's all that person ever does. And repeats the same stuff you'll debunk / put to rest again and again and again. Some people dont value time, or worse they do and their goal is to waste all of yours.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

How even more funny my little narrative becomes if it really was a 4chan troll project in its origins!

Like #Pizzagate?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

..because you create news based on a fake document.
Fake News. Simple.

So Clinton's testimony was fake. Fake News. Simple.

I am quite sure many of the accusations against Clinton were fake news.
Now you are getting somewhere.
The MSM is a propaganda machine that pushes fake news for political and ideological reasons. When you find yourself defending them, whether it is CNN, FOX, MSNBC or any of the other shills, you need to catch yourself before you lose your mind.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

..because you create news based on a fake document.
Fake News. Simple.

So Clinton's testimony was fake. Fake News. Simple.

That would be a LIE. Fake news would be if the News knew it was a LIE but then went and repeatedly reported it as truth evermore.

a reply to: UKTruth

"We may never know the truth." --Motto of the Kremlin Troll Army.