It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Like the rest of an incomplete 1995 tax return?

I'm not holding my breath.

Because if there was a smoking gun.

They would be playing it right now.

Loud and Proud.
edit on 17-2-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

They're not misleading anyone. Just because trump says it's fake doesn't make it true. Especially since so little of what he says is true.

The country is getting tired of that already.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: underwerks
If the information in the leaks aren't real, it wouldn't matter, and Trump should be able to easily disprove them.

I realize a lot of Trump supporters throw logic out the window in favor of the right wing media narrative they've been fed, that uses their distrust of government against them, but logic still has a place here.

The majority of time, the simplest explanation is the truest.

Either its a giagntic conspiracy involving thousands of people around the globe, or it's just Trump lying, as he obviously does numerous times every week.


LOL, prove to us that you aren't a Russian spy. (and remember, pics or it didn't happen)

Check the exif data on all the pics I've uploaded if you feel so inclined.


Seriously, what does that have to do with anything in my post? Or are you trying to derail......

Hmmmm.....


Dude, you might just be THE most paranoid person I have ever spoke with.


If the information in the leaks aren't real, it wouldn't matter, and Trump should be able to easily disprove them.


So as not to derail, how about you explain what Trump would do to disprove the leaks. (I always enjoy watching someone try to prove a negative)

If that's not clear enough or you fear I am a Russian spy send to derail this thread, please feel free to hit the alert button.

Well, yeah.


This is a conspiracy site, paranoid is the name of the game.

I don't think anyone believes Trump himself is a Russian agent, just that he's surrounded himself by people who have questionable ties to Russia.

How would Trump prove the information in the leaks are false? By publicly questioning the Russian ties of the people he surrounds himself with, and answering questions about those same people's ties, when asked. Instead of brushing it off as nothing.

He seems to care more about not being questioned than being forthright with his employer, the american public.

That's a huge sign.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Did anyone actually read the document???? I had trouble getting past the ((section blah blah blah))(IV) blah blah blah; however, what I DID get from it was pretty reasonable stuff. I can't copy and paste from it, so I'll paraphrase a couple of key things I saw.

The recent surge of illegal immigration at our southern border has overwhelmed federal agencies and resources, and has created a significant national security vulnerability that presents a clear and present danger to the U.S. - can anyone dispute?

The Asylum System is fraught with corruption.

The kids need to be protected. The "unaccompanied minors" are being preyed upon by cartels, criminals, etc. With the latest spotlight on child trafficking, one can assume that these kids are greatly at risk.

So, a fairly decent memo gets into the hands of people who sensationalize 2 paragraphs in an 11 page document instead of reporting on the challenges facing border control agents, as well as the statistics regarding the percentage of criminal activity associated with the whole border mess. The leak is real. The news is false. Now I understand what that meant.

Again, please READ the document instead of taking the MSM's word on it.

Thanks for the link, Xuenchen!

Document



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Double post
edit on 2/17/2017 by Lolliek because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DanDanDat

They're not misleading anyone. Just because trump says it's fake doesn't make it true. Especially since so little of what he says is true.

The country is getting tired of that already.


If you bothered to read the WHOLE OP, you would see that the proof has nothing to do with Trump, and everything to do with the article itself. But I know folks like you can't be bothered to read the article, just the headlines.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah, that one is shades of Bush's plans to invaed Iran that came complete with the military's secret strategy that everyone believed.

Does the military have plans for a potential invasion of Iran? Yes, but they also wargame alien invasion too. They likely have secret plans for the invasions of Lesotho and Lichtenstein on their shelves somewhere. It's about contingencies and being prepared. Were they planning on using those plans anytime soon? Particularly to keep Bush in power? Not so much.

There you go. Fake news generated from a real leak.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: underwerks
If the information in the leaks aren't real, it wouldn't matter, and Trump should be able to easily disprove them.

I realize a lot of Trump supporters throw logic out the window in favor of the right wing media narrative they've been fed, that uses their distrust of government against them, but logic still has a place here.

The majority of time, the simplest explanation is the truest.

Either its a giagntic conspiracy involving thousands of people around the globe, or it's just Trump lying, as he obviously does numerous times every week.


I fail to see how your comments are relevant to this OP; The New York Times article itself disproves the negative sensationalism that they open their article with. It doesn’t take Trump or anyone else to prove it; it’s already been done.

If the negative sensationalism was proved and without a doubt that's what it was, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.


So we are free make up our own uniformed conclusions and use our imaginings as back up?

The four people who leaked the information, those most informed about them, have stated them selves that:

"The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation. "

But we are to dismiss this important fact and keep going head strong with our imaginings?

Now I do know that where on a conspiracy website so it's fun to entertain our imagination; but the MSM should not have that luxury.


edit on 17-2-2017 by DaveButts because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
But...
They're not finished investigating either.
It's there. They'll find it.


That's a fair point and when they find it; I wouldn't have a problem with the MSM putting out news that says so. But there is a problem when the MSM makes the news before it happens.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

Speculation != fake. Opinion isn't fact. You should really attempt to learn the difference.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DanDanDat

They're not misleading anyone. Just because trump says it's fake doesn't make it true. Especially since so little of what he says is true.

The country is getting tired of that already.


It is the leak source them selves that have stated that they have not yet found any wrong doing. What Trump calls fake is irrelevant.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Presenting speculation as investigative reporting is what makes the reporting unethical.

Opinion is ment for the opped pages; not the news pages. You should really attempt to learn the difference.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DanDanDat

They're not misleading anyone. Just because trump says it's fake doesn't make it true. Especially since so little of what he says is true.

The country is getting tired of that already.


If you bothered to read the WHOLE OP, you would see that the proof has nothing to do with Trump, and everything to do with the article itself. But I know folks like you can't be bothered to read the article, just the headlines.

I happened to read the whole article the OP posted and it is nothing like the OP described it to be. He has completely misrepresented the point of the article and is 100% wrong about the article disproving itself.

The OP is using the article leaving itself open ended and not speculating too heavily as evidence that its narrative is incorrect. That's dumb; if anything the Times' reporting here is pretty decent. Just the facts of what is known so far and not much additional speculation on what went on.
edit on 17-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

It's all pretty simple. I can sit here with my 2010 Honda Accord outside, posting ads to sell it. It's real. It's an actual, concrete object and asset.

I can also twist/spin what type of car it is, it's vehicle history, mileage, top speed, Honda's reputation, etc.

That's fake news.

That's what the media does, they take something and spin it to fit their narrative. They turn a true and real piece of information, then manipulate it. With Trump, the manipulation is generally based on emotion.
edit on 17-2-2017 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: DaveButts

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: underwerks
If the information in the leaks aren't real, it wouldn't matter, and Trump should be able to easily disprove them.

I realize a lot of Trump supporters throw logic out the window in favor of the right wing media narrative they've been fed, that uses their distrust of government against them, but logic still has a place here.

The majority of time, the simplest explanation is the truest.

Either its a giagntic conspiracy involving thousands of people around the globe, or it's just Trump lying, as he obviously does numerous times every week.


I fail to see how your comments are relevant to this OP; The New York Times article itself disproves the negative sensationalism that they open their article with. It doesn’t take Trump or anyone else to prove it; it’s already been done.

If the negative sensationalism was proved and without a doubt that's what it was, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.


So we are free make up our own uniformed conclusions and use our imaginings as back up?

That's exactly what your OP is doing as another poster pointed out. A news article not drawing concrete conclusions because all of the facts aren't known yet isn't "fake news".

No matter how much you disagree with it.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

With the short attention spans of the average social media user, we can expect to find the real headlines buried somewhere near the bottom. The leaks are real, but the news is fake.


The average liberal can not maintain mental focus past 140 characters anyways... It's like after the first few lines...Look Squirrel!!!

I came to this conclusion back when Biden was first running with Obama. If seems that Biden can say all kinds of things, (some just down right off) remake events as he sees fit and has lived by the idea that he can say anything because even if it was fact checked it doesn't matter to his supporting masses since they would not even put in effort to even care past his initial statement 99.9% of the time.

I remember the Ryan/Biden debate where Biden successfully won the debate by attacking Ryan on so many negative 2012 liberal ideals, like the war...etc. That Ryan had little to come back with. The interesting part was all these things that Biden was attacking him on were things that he himself supported whole heartly, and even at a much higher level than Ryan did.

Below is case in point...

hotair.com...


So much effort used towards the right and so little towards the left I think is a main reason for such extreme differences...
edit on 17-2-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Hey Mr. Rational.. you know it's impossible to prove a negative don't you?

These establishment shills can make any claims they want and no one will be able to disprove them, the accusation is more than enough as the establishment media will run with the story no matter how flimsy it is.

If you can't see the bias by now you're beyond all help. It's beyond obvious at this point.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude


LOL yourself. Any half-wit knows you cannot prove a negative and if my memory servers me, I went down this exact path with you once before. If he's a Russian spy --- you prove it.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

So they are fake, even though they fully disclose the two examples you provided?

How does that work?



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

...the hell are you talking about?!




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join