A thread on politics- have some balls and post

Remove this Banner Ad

The alt-right media seem far less upset by Flynn's treasonous behaviour than they are about the fact it got leaked.

They also seem to be currently engaged in a coordinated effort (led by Breitbart/Bannonbart) to get the phrase "deep state" into the mainstream lexicon. Only a matter of days until Spicer and Conway are blaming the "deep state" for everything.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Skoob said:
I'd love for it to be true if it lends to a speedy departure of Trump, but I have to laugh at the quoted source; " four current and former American officials".
I mean, what exactly is an "American official"?
Who knows what to believe from any direction anymore?
Click to expand...

The sources seem solid. If not you'd think the FBI would quickly knock it all on the head.

I mean Obama and Trump were allegedly briefed on it. There's fire on this one, not just smoke.
 
TheBrownDog said:
The sources seem solid. If not you'd think the FBI would quickly knock it all on the head.

I mean Obama and Trump were allegedly briefed on it. There's fire on this one, not just smoke.
Click to expand...
Well they were briefed on a spy dossier that the Russians had some claims (admitting that I didn't get much past the pissing prostitutes), but was the contact between campaign staff last year part of that? Dunno. Either way, I am not the least surprised if true, and kinda hope it is. It just seems like a article for the sake of an article, citing not much evidence. Laughing at the report, rather than the likeliness or truth of it.
 
Can someone point me to one credible source on this whole Russian document that seems to be a complete load of BS? I've had a look into it and haven't been able to find anything credible at all.
 
Skoob said:
Well they were briefed on a spy dossier that the Russians had some claims (admitting that I didn't get much past the pissing prostitutes), but was the contact between campaign staff last year part of that? Dunno. Either way, I am not the least surprised if true, and kinda hope it is. It just seems like a article for the sake of an article, citing not much evidence. Laughing at the report, rather than the likeliness or truth of it.
Click to expand...

No matter what Trump and his cronies say, the fact that it is in the NY Times lends it credibility. NYT and Washington Post are pretty impartial for the most part and have good sources as well as a policy of not publishing unless they have two independent verifiable sources to corroborate which makes them more trustworthy than 90% of the US media industrial complex. When they use unnamed sources it's because the journalists involved trust them enough they are prepared to go to prison to protect their identity rather than they have just made them up. Most of the reports at the moment say it is the leakiest White House in history and that it's easy to leak because it's so dysfunctional.
 
Leemas said:
Can someone point me to one credible source on this whole Russian document that seems to be a complete load of BS? I've had a look into it and haven't been able to find anything credible at all.
Click to expand...

What do you mean credible source? As to who compiled it? That is already known.

As to who his specific sources were, you're unlikely to ever find that out, as it's raw intelligence.

Steele isn't going to disclose that unless he wants a serve of Polonium sushi. The Russians don't * around.

The general expectation with raw intelligence is that sourced are unnamed and that some of it will be true, some will be somewhat true, and some will just be rumour and hearsay that turns out to be incorrect.

That said, it was reported a few days ago that US investigators have been able to corroborate some of the allegations in the dossier, largely relating to conversations between foreign nationals. It isn't specific to any of the more damning allegations in the dossier but adds weight to the credibility of the author and his connections (which is already considered by many to be highly credible).

Skoob said:
It just seems like a article for the sake of an article, citing not much evidence. Laughing at the report, rather than the likeliness or truth of it.
Click to expand...

I think you're misreading this one to be honest Skoob. It's bigger than you think. CNN are naming names already (Flynn and Manafort). It's a living story and I think more layers will be peeled off this onion in coming hours and days.

It's not been made totally clear yet but it sounds like some of the briefing content about contact between Trump campaign officials and Russia may have included intelligence wiretaps, and not just the Steele dossier.
 
Last edited:
Leemas said:
Can someone point me to one credible source on this whole Russian document that seems to be a complete load of BS? I've had a look into it and haven't been able to find anything credible at all.
Click to expand...

All that is credible at the moment is that major news organisations have verified that the intelligence document is real and that agent who compiled it is real and his work is respected, the actual contents of the dossier are yet to be verified.
 
The people who are leaking this stuff are doing it in quite a clever way. The drip-by-drip feeding of information is problematic for a Trump administration that loves to issue definitive and immediate denials. Spicer comes out today and tries to contain all the controversy exclusively to Flynn and exclusively to the transition period. He is then asked if the administration is aware of any contact with Russian officials during the election period to which he gives the "I know nothing".

Next minute, the NYT article drops. If it is substantiated, Spicer either looks like a liar, or like he is totally out of the loop.

They really have to be careful how they handle each new bit of information because it doesn't look like the leaks are going to stop any time soon.
 
Last edited:
TheBrownDog said:
What do you mean credible source? As to who compiled it? That is already known.

As to who his specific sources were, you're unlikely to ever find that out, as it's raw intelligence.

Steele isn't going to disclose that unless he wants a serve of Polonium sushi. The Russians don't **** around.

The general expectation with raw intelligence is that sourced are unnamed and that some of it will be true, some will be somewhat true, and some will just be rumour and hearsay that turns out to be incorrect.

That said, it was reported a few days ago that US investigators have been able to corroborate some of the allegations in the dossier, largely relating to conversations between foreign nations. It isn't specific to any of the more damning allegations in the dossier but adds weight to the credibility of the author and his connections (which is already considered by many to be highly credible).



I think you're misreading this one to be honest Skoob. It's bigger than you think. CNN are naming names already (Flynn and Manafort). It's a living story and I think more layers will be peeled off this onion in coming hours and days.

It's not been made totally clear yet but it sounds like some of the briefing content about contact between Trump campaign officials and Russia may have included intelligence wiretaps, and not just the Steele dossier.
Click to expand...

Cheers for that. Honestly this stuff is going way over my head. I've looked really into what both sides have to say and I'm seeing good arguments on both sides on whether its legit or a load of BS. I think I'm just gonna stop following all this to be honest, so hard to sift through all the crap thats being peddled out on both sides. It's frustrating in this day an age with access to so much information finding the truth can be real difficult.

I'm keen to see if this eventuates further or just blows over like everything else that's happened to him.
 
Leemas said:
Cheers for that. Honestly this stuff is going way over my head. I've looked really into what both sides have to say and I'm seeing good arguments on both sides on whether its legit or a load of BS. I think I'm just gonna stop following all this to be honest, so hard to sift through all the crap thats being peddled out on both sides. It's frustrating in this day an age with access to so much information finding the truth can be real difficult.

I'm keen to see if this eventuates further or just blows over like everything else that's happened to him.
Click to expand...

Credible, impartial news sources have been lumped in with more partisan stuff under the "fake news" banner to basically force supporters to believe that the only good source of info is straight from Trump and his team and assorted sanctioned friendly media. People have started jokingly referring to it as "Pravda" which was the State-controlled media in the USSR. Out of the network media in the US, NBC is still fairly credible and free of bias and the New York Times and Washington Post live and die by their accuracy so they are always good places to start. At the end of the day the media that gets called "liberal" in the US only relative to how right-wing their conservatives are.
 
TheBrownDog said:
I think you're misreading this one to be honest Skoob. It's bigger than you think. CNN are naming names already (Flynn and Manafort). It's a living story and I think more layers will be peeled off this onion in coming hours and days.

It's not been made totally clear yet but it sounds like some of the briefing content about contact between Trump campaign officials and Russia may have included intelligence wiretaps, and not just the Steele dossier.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. It just sounded a bit funny to me. I wasn't at all aware of the credibility of the press involved.
Caiphus said:
No matter what Trump and his cronies say, the fact that it is in the NY Times lends it credibility. NYT and Washington Post are pretty impartial for the most part and have good sources as well as a policy of not publishing unless they have two independent verifiable sources to corroborate which makes them more trustworthy than 90% of the US media industrial complex. When they use unnamed sources it's because the journalists involved trust them enough they are prepared to go to prison to protect their identity rather than they have just made them up. Most of the reports at the moment say it is the leakiest White House in history and that it's easy to leak because it's so dysfunctional.
Click to expand...
This adds a heap of context.:thumbsu:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Caiphus said:
Credible, impartial news sources have been lumped in with more partisan stuff under the "fake news" banner to basically force supporters to believe that the only good source of info is straight from Trump and his team and assorted sanctioned friendly media. People have started jokingly referring to it as "Pravda" which was the State-controlled media in the USSR. Out of the network media in the US, NBC is still fairly credible and free of bias and the New York Times and Washington Post live and die by their accuracy so they are always good places to start. At the end of the day the media that gets called "liberal" in the US only relative to how right-wing their conservatives are.
Click to expand...

Disagree unequivocally on the Washington Post still being credible. They were embarrassingly partisan throughout the primaries, and sickeningly so throughout the election. Bezos's control and political alliances contaminated them and it was patently apparent. It's sad because for so many decades they were a beacon of credibility and will forever be a shining example of the strength of journalism due to the efforts of Bernstein and Woodward. But 1972 was a long time ago and it seems in 2013 that their ability to be impartial was purchased for $250 million. I'll still read their articles but I can't lie that as a Fairfax reader I could identify every one of their articles from their often eye-rolling headlines, suspicions which were confirmed with the byline of their completely flaccid and fact or quote bereft articles.

We shouldn't ever fall into the trap of placing media entities on a pedestal, regardless of which side they're from or what they've done in the pass. Accepting any information from entities we deem to be credible without consideration is a trap for every human being. We now have free access to a plethora of news sources that was unprecedented and I think we should read as much as possible and are doing a disservice to ourselves to not view as many as possible.

Still love the NYT and admittedly I'm a bit of a fanboy so I may be victim of what I previously stated about putting media entities on pedestals but I will acknowledge that their election coverage revealed they aren't perfect, despite being the most reliable entity throughout the election along with PBS. In saying that I acknowledge that in that very revelatory article these paragraphs stood out to me as somewhat questionable and contradictory to much of the preceding info:

Several of Mr. Trump’s associates, like Mr. Manafort, have done business in Russia. And it is not unusual for American businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society. Law enforcement officials did not say to what extent the contacts might have been about business.

The officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, the identity of the Russian intelligence officials who participated, and how many of Mr. Trump’s advisers were talking to the Russians. It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Mr. Trump himself.
Click to expand...
 
It seems like the only way Trump can get control of things atm is to literally silence the media.

I haven't followed the stories closely but it does seem like screw up after screw up or is it a bit of the media going harder at Trump than they have at other presidents?
 
jackess said:
Yes, only ignorant people would vote for a political party who would have people like this as a candidate.

http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexual...ays-gay-activists-are-using-nazi-mind-control
Click to expand...
Hahahah oh man cheers for that. I've never heard of Norwegian gay mind control before I guess we all should watch out for it :p

But in all seriousness what a loon, I was under the impression Pauline had weeded out most of the nutters by now. Be very interesting to see how One Nation goes in WA.
 
Leemas said:
Hahahah oh man cheers for that. I've never heard of Norwegian gay mind control before I guess we all should watch out for it :p

But in all seriousness what a loon, I was under the impression Pauline had weeded out most of the nutters by now. Be very interesting to see how One Nation goes in WA.
Click to expand...

They're going to do quite well. Union members who have lost faith in Labor are leaning towards One Nation scared of immigrants stealing their jobs.
 
jackess said:
They're going to do quite well. Union members who have lost faith in Labor are leaning towards One Nation scared of immigrants stealing their jobs.
Click to expand...

Also for the folks who are more nationalist than globalist have limited alternative choices (in the lower house in any case)
 
TheBrownDog said:
Milo.

Hehehehehehe.
Click to expand...
Blokes the king of provocation. Any publicity is good publicity his book will come out and it will sell way more copies then he would've without all this controversy.

The only person who will be laughing will be Milo all the way to the bank.

Just to be clear I don't endorse anything Milo has to say but this is the type of stuff that makes his entire career and keeps him in the spotlight.
 
Leemas said:
Blokes the king of provocation. Any publicity is good publicity his book will come out and it will sell way more copies then he would've without all this controversy.

The only person who will be laughing will be Milo all the way to the bank.

Just to be clear I don't endorse anything Milo has to say but this is the type of stuff that makes his entire career and keeps him in the spotlight.
Click to expand...

Not sure "normaliser of pedophilia" is quite the sort of controversy that converts to easy bank. It could all be an act but he looked legitimately shook in his youtube post today.

His book will sell a shitload either way though, the alt-reich adore him.
 
TheBrownDog said:
Not sure "normaliser of pedophilia" is quite the sort of controversy that converts to easy bank. It could all be an act but he looked legitimately shook in his youtube post today.

His book will sell a shitload either way though, the alt-reich adore him.
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear those comments were taken out of context although an extremely piss poor thing to say. He's already jumped into damage control and what I have found quite interesting is besides the sensational headlines the articles are all actually including the fact the video was edited, taken out of context etc.

I really thought he'd be absolutely slammed after I saw it all unfolding but this will be a walk in the park for Milo. It's almost as if the majority of media are scared of him I don't know. Just was really shocked they were even reporting on his side of it when they could effectively have buried him due to this controversy. Especially with the alt rights view on pedophiles and such could have absolutely buried him on both sides.

Missed opportunity I reckon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
The ADH... Look a Squirrel
Replies
15
Views
990
Grasshopper17
G

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top