Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Agema:

If Trump drops a nuke on Quebec for shits and giggles, you'll still be crypto-defending him by saying at least Clinton didn't win.

If it was downtown I wouldn't be deflecting things, I'd be happy he cured a tumour and upset he didn't go for Toronto.

Adam Jensen:
Jesus fuckin' Christ. You actually think that The Washington Post came up with that story in an hour? You think that someone with their reputation can afford to risk publishing that article and that they would do it just to cover up the "real scoop"?

What reputation do you speak of? Because this is the same Washington Post that has for the past 3 years been consistently posting articles on different matters that are so at odds with reality they couldn't even operate in my country because of our anti-propaganda laws.

Oh, and by the way there is no private investigator hired by the family. It's literally a fake story. Seth's family denied the whole thing.

Only sources I can see claiming this are the Daily Mail and BuzzFeed. Not exactly ones that make me think "credibility".

Edit: relevant

image

pookie101:

Baffle2:
It's okay, the story has changed from 'He didn't share anything' to 'I'm allowed to share things so there!'. I like that he waits for all his aides to say one thing, then says the opposite. Keeps them on their toes.

funny isnt it.. its like he does it on purpose.

latest news apparently a european country is reviewing whether or not to share sensitive intelligence with the US after this

Just the one, and just in Europe?

C'mon people, time to blow the dust off the Commonwealth and get the EU working together properly.

Zontar:

Catnip1024:
I said it before, and I'll say it again - unnamed sources are as good as fake news for all the journalistic accountability that is in place. Give me something solid.

An unnamed source wouldn't cut it in a court of law, and neither should it in the court of popular opinion.

The timing is also suspect given how it came out just long enough after the Seth Rich story broke that it could literally have been written up on the spot in response to it.

...That would be libel. You know, illegal. Contrary to what Trump would have you believe and his supporters apparently believe, the news does not have a carte blanche to lie about people or to make stories up wholesale. They are protected to some limited degree if they are simply wrong, but if they are then a redaction is necessary to mitigate the damage to the best of their ability, and even then there's grounds for lawsuits. The post is not the Onion or the Enquirer. Spin is one thing, but making up a story is not worth it, and they know it.

Adam Jensen:

Jesus fuckin' Christ. You actually think that The Washington Post came up with that story in an hour? You think that someone with their reputation can afford to risk publishing that article and that they would do it just to cover up the "real scoop"?

But that is much like the essence of "fake news", isn't it?

Fling mud irrespective of its validity. Up-value the unlikely and devalue the likely. Subject reasonable and reptuable sources to intense scrutiny and suspicion, and give unreasonable and disreputable sources an easy pass. Inveigle, obfuscate, deceive.

Asita:

Zontar:

Catnip1024:
I said it before, and I'll say it again - unnamed sources are as good as fake news for all the journalistic accountability that is in place. Give me something solid.

An unnamed source wouldn't cut it in a court of law, and neither should it in the court of popular opinion.

The timing is also suspect given how it came out just long enough after the Seth Rich story broke that it could literally have been written up on the spot in response to it.

...That would be libel. You know, illegal. Contrary to what Trump would have you believe and his supporters apparently believe, the news does not have a carte blanche to lie about people or to make stories up wholesale. They are protected to some limited degree if they are simply wrong, but if they are then a redaction is necessary to mitigate the damage to the best of their ability, and even then there's grounds for lawsuits. The post is not the Onion or the Enquirer. Spin is one thing, but making up a story is not worth it, and they know it.

So they know it's not worth it, yet they've been doing it consistently for years now, and even started the series of events that through slanderous publication led to the adpocalypse on YouTube that's killing the platform? That seems like malicious intent if I've ever seen it.

Also, remind me, didn't outlets like the Washington Post claim that Russia was blackmailing Trump because of something to do with urination in a hotel that turned out to be a 4chan hoax? Really not believing the media without agencies taking action at this point, and for good reason, they've lost it and have no right to complain about having lost it.

Agema:

Adam Jensen:

Jesus fuckin' Christ. You actually think that The Washington Post came up with that story in an hour? You think that someone with their reputation can afford to risk publishing that article and that they would do it just to cover up the "real scoop"?

But that is much like the essence of "fake news", isn't it?

Fling mud irrespective of its validity. Up-value the unlikely and devalue the likely. Subject reasonable and reptuable sources to intense scrutiny and suspicion, and give unreasonable and disreputable sources an easy pass. Inveigle, obfuscate, deceive.

If Washington Post is considered reasonable and reputable, then that says more about the sorry state of the media then it does those who choose to not believe known, consistent liars.

Zontar:
Edit: relevant

Pretty sure that's talking about the Clinton campaign's paranoia about the loyalty of its senior staff and numerous leaks to the press about campaign strategy, not the DNC leak that would happen a year later.

Which is not an insignificant issue, but you do it a disservice by tying it to Seth Rich.

Zontar:

What reputation do you speak of? Because this is the same Washington Post that has for the past 3 years been consistently posting articles on different matters that are so at odds with reality they couldn't even operate in my country because of our anti-propaganda laws.

Explain this. In depth. With evidence, sources, reference to relevant judicial or regulatory judgements.

Because I'm going to bet the reality is very, very different from what you're saying.

bastardofmelbourne:
This was not actually illegal. Sharing classified information is one of the many, many, many things a President can do without it being illegal, because the President can declassify information whenever he wants.

Still super shady, though. And probably not good for US national security.

That's why a good number of us are tapping the impeachment option. On the surface, would I have a problem with other presidents sharing this information with Russia? No. Honestly, I wouldn't. Would I have had a problem if any of those presidents had a nebulous link to Russian interests that said president has stymied every attempt to bring the truth nature of their relationship to Russia to light and THEN shared information like this? Absolutely I would. Republican, Democrat, Green Party, or Hypno-toad. That doesn't bring out feelings of faith for me.

For many, as it would seem.

Zontar:
Only sources I can see claiming this are the Daily Mail and BuzzFeed. Not exactly ones that make me think "credibility".

But Fox News is credible? Especially when they're regurgitating a conspiracy theory. Credibility. Credibility everywhere. The same Fox News that couldn't even spend 5 minutes checking with Seth's family before they decided to go with this story? Fox News that had this man as their commentator: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/fox-news-analyst-still-wont-admit-he-was-not-in-cia/2016/07/14/eb61b5e4-478e-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html

The same Fox News that used to employ a serial liar O'Riley, a mental patient Glenn Beck and currently employs a complete hack Sean Hannity? I could spend the next 72h typing down all the shit that Fox News and various other right-wing lunatics have said over the years and it wouldn't even cover 1% of their bullshit. So why bother?

Believe whatever you want. It's not like it's going to last very long so enjoy it while you can. But I wonder how long until we find out who the third party that hired this investigator is. I wouldn't be surprised if that sociopath James O'Keefe had something to do with it.

Zontar:
Edit: relevant

https://scontent.fymy1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t34.0-12/18492827_1391917657510357_25800512_n.jpg?oh=78229674a06309356c1dc8abf72765b1&oe=591CE86F

No, it's not relevant. Real life isn't a Hollywood movie. You don't make an example out of someone by killing them. If you kill them you have to cover it up. If you cover it up, you're not really making an example. It's the 21st century in the real world, not the 1960's in a movie. Making an example of someone means sending them to prison or destroying their career and credibility.

Zontar:

Also, remind me, didn't outlets like the Washington Post claim that Russia was blackmailing Trump because of something to do with urination in a hotel that turned out to be a 4chan hoax? Really not believing the media without agencies taking action at this point, and for good reason, they've lost it and have no right to complain about having lost it.

Well first of all, I think you're thinking about BuzzFeed. Second of all, best I can tell the 4chan thing is specious at best and in at least one respect illustrates the desperate eagerness of Trump's base to jump at the idea of news being proved fake. 4Chan claimed to have deliberately fed disinformation to Rick Watson...which people jumped on to claim that a [unverified] dossier from Christopher Steele was false.

Seanchaidh:

Zontar:
Edit: relevant

Pretty sure that's talking about the Clinton campaign's paranoia about the loyalty of its senior staff and numerous leaks to the press about campaign strategy, not the DNC leak that would happen a year later.

Which is not an insignificant issue, but you do it a disservice by tying it to Seth Rich.

We are talking about a group of people who over 8 years showed no problem killing Americans without a warrant due to Obama's use of the drone program, in a country where political assassinations have at least been tolerated within its borders given the assassination of Orlando Letelier.

Adam Jensen:
Believe whatever you want. It's not like it's going to last very long so enjoy it while you can.

Funny how people have been saying this for 7 months now and yet it never comes.

Asita:

Zontar:

Also, remind me, didn't outlets like the Washington Post claim that Russia was blackmailing Trump because of something to do with urination in a hotel that turned out to be a 4chan hoax? Really not believing the media without agencies taking action at this point, and for good reason, they've lost it and have no right to complain about having lost it.

Well first of all, I think you're thinking about BuzzFeed. Second of all, best I can tell the 4chan thing is specious at best and in at least one respect illustrates the desperate eagerness of Trump's base to jump at the idea of news being proved fake. 4Chan claimed to have deliberately fed disinformation to Rick Watson...which people jumped on to claim that a [unverified] dossier from Christopher Steele was false.

The entire Piss Gate incident turned out to be fabricated and had no basis in reality. Every outlet that reported it made a fool of themselves given the fact that literally nothing backed up the initial claim. It was quite funny to watch, though it's sad that people still think the people who fell for that are somehow competent.

It's funny to see lots of people dealing with all this by imagining how worse things would be under Clinton's administration. Everyone has their way to deal with the harsh reality I guess...

CaitSeith:
It's funny to see lots of people dealing with all this by imagining how worse things would be under Clinton's administration. Everyone has their way to deal with the harsh reality I guess...

its how i dealt with thief 4.. the horror.. the horror

Zontar:

Agema:

If Trump drops a nuke on Quebec for shits and giggles, you'll still be crypto-defending him by saying at least Clinton didn't win.

If it was downtown I wouldn't be deflecting things, I'd be happy he cured a tumour and upset he didn't go for Toronto.

Hey, what the hell man?!

CaitSeith:
It's funny to see lots of people dealing with all this by imagining how worse things would be under Clinton's administration. Everyone has their way to deal with the harsh reality I guess...

It is a curious way to go about things, isn't it?

"God, can you imagine what would happen if a Chinchilla was in charge of Turning Pharmaceuticals instead of Martin Shkreli? God, we're lucky we didn't have a Chinchilla in charge."

"... Wait, Martin SHKRELI? The guy who took a needed drug and literally raised the cost up 4000 percent?!"

"Can you imagine what the Chinchilla would have done?"

"Chinchilla?! Why are you talking about a Chinchilla?! He took Daraprim that cost $13.50 per pill and made it $750 per pill over night! He called the move 'Altruistic!'. He did a bad thing! Not a mythical Chinchilla... Shkreli actively harmed people and called his actions good for everyone!"

"That Chinchilla would have made it $1000 dollars. Bullet dodged."

ObsidianJones:

It is a curious way to go about things, isn't it?

I think the phrase is 'When life gives you lemons', but in this case most people would be happy with lemons instead of the live grenade they're currently holding.

Zontar:

Can't exactly argue they aren't in good company when the Democrats thought Clinton was a good idea to have as their candidate, or pretty much every single thing they've done ever since the election without much exception.

Now that the election's been over for about seven months and Trump has been in office for the last four months, I think it's time to drop it with the whole Hillary Clinton thing.

When the Democrats control the entire federal government or have any realistic prospects of doing so, we can talk about their incompetence. In the meantime, it's the Republicans who are controlling the government, and therefore they are responsible for what it does.

Zontar:

Catnip1024:
I said it before, and I'll say it again - unnamed sources are as good as fake news for all the journalistic accountability that is in place. Give me something solid.

An unnamed source wouldn't cut it in a court of law, and neither should it in the court of popular opinion.

The timing is also suspect given how it came out just long enough after the Seth Rich story broke that it could literally have been written up on the spot in response to it.

image

Dalisclock:

Xsjadoblayde:
Will this lead to any accountability? Any...thing whatsoever? Or will the repubs just stonewall everybody as long as they get to maintain power? They seem to be not bothered with credibility at all since the Trump victory. Kinda worrying on many levels.
There has to be a breaking point with all this activity. What will it take to remove these cretins? Trump shooting someone on live television? They're taking the piss.

I'm sure his supporters would call this draining the swamp or "Telling it like it is" or some such shit. Hell, I wouldn't be suprised if Trump started running over poor people with his limo and his supporters would defend him.

Is that like how Labour's leader drove over a journalist and Labour supporters are blaming the media instead of his driver?

The Seth Rich "story" is complete and utter bullshit. Rich's family is on record about this. So is the Metro DCPD. The "private investigator" in question convinced a single television news outlet with his claims (of which he supplied ZERO evidence) and now the right wing media is parroting the without vetting or verifying the claims, with the nakedly obvious intention of stoking conspiracy theories and distracting from Trump's continued bad press.

Also...if you have a bomshell scoop that's worth ANYTHING, you don't go to a local Fox TV news affiliate the story first. If you have a bullshit unsubstantiated rumor that you need to get out into the press somehow because you know that respectable outlets will ask questions and try to vet it....THAT'S when you go to a two-bit local TV news station.

Please stop.

Zontar:

Adam Jensen:
Oh, and by the way there is no private investigator hired by the family. It's literally a fake story. Seth's family denied the whole thing.

Only sources I can see claiming this are the Daily Mail and BuzzFeed. Not exactly ones that make me think "credibility".

You're not looking very hard, then.

http://www.businessinsider.com/seth-rich-family-right-wing-media-report-wikileaks-2017-5
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/slain-dnc-staffer-had-contact-with-wikileaks-investigator-says.html
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/333555-family-of-slain-dnc-staffer-slams-report-he-had-contact-with-wikileaks
http://foxbaltimore.com/news/nation-world/private-investigator-claims-slain-dnc-staff-seth-rich-had-contact-with-wikileaks
http://forward.com/fast-forward/372070/seth-rich-parents-refute-new-claims-on-wikileaks-contact/
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/family-blasts-right-wing-media-for-spreading-fake-news-story-about-slain-dnc-staffer-as-russia-scandal-deepens/

Seems Trump was stupid enough to confirm it on his twitter, what about the 'fake news' now?

Agema:
In other words, you want to vastly reduce the public accountability of those in power.

That's what it means to say an unnamed source is virtually irrelevant. It means to have impact, the source must be named, and at that point a lot of potential whistleblowers aren't going to risk the torrent of shit that's likely to fall on their lives and careers.

So congratulations on your decision to facilitate corruption and incompetence.

1) First things first, in light of further evidence that has come through today, I'm inclined to believe that this did take place. However, the exact nature of what was revealed remains to be seen. If it was "Oh, by the way, we think IS might be able to fit explosives in a laptop", well, no shit. Most people could deduct that from the laptop ban on flights. It is still wrong to pass on information provided by allies without consulting them, however.

2) I heard an "unnamed source" say that Obama was a lizardman. He saw it with his own eyes, apparently. Shall we start dissecting him to check?

If we start accepting unproven evidence from either side, it's fake news. Give me proper evidence, not "he said, she said".

Agema:
But that is much like the essence of "fake news", isn't it?

Fling mud irrespective of its validity. Up-value the unlikely and devalue the likely. Subject reasonable and reptuable sources to intense scrutiny and suspicion, and give unreasonable and disreputable sources an easy pass. Inveigle, obfuscate, deceive.

No, the essence of fake news is stories with no concrete evidence. Regardless of which side. If Stephen Hawking suddenly said that there were molemen ready to launch an attack if he didn't win an Oscar, and he had interviewed a reliable source regarding this, it is irrelevant how reputable he was previously, there is no fricking evidence and the story is clearly to forward his own ends.

Critical thinking means being sceptical of everything, not picking and choosing.

renegade7:

Now that the election's been over for about seven months and Trump has been in office for the last four months, I think it's time to drop it with the whole Hillary Clinton thing.

But that would remove several of there key defenses for Trump. "E-mails! Benghazi! Rigged!" is pretty much their foundation of all there arguments, without those they are reduced to "Fake News!"

In the meantime, it's the Republicans who are controlling the government, and therefore they are responsible for what it does.

Clearly you are not thinking straight. If the Democrats had done their jobs correctly, and just rolled over and let the Republicans do whatever they wanted to then America would be the greatest country on Earth and every person* in the country would be super happy, healthy and popular all the time.

*To qualify as a "person" one must be as follows: Rich (millionaires accepted, billionaires preferred), White and Male (by birth, gender reassignment surgery nullifies all rights and privileges)

ObsidianJones:

CaitSeith:
It's funny to see lots of people dealing with all this by imagining how worse things would be under Clinton's administration. Everyone has their way to deal with the harsh reality I guess...

It is a curious way to go about things, isn't it?

"God, can you imagine what would happen if a Chinchilla was in charge of Turning Pharmaceuticals instead of Martin Shkreli? God, we're lucky we didn't have a Chinchilla in charge."

"... Wait, Martin SHKRELI? The guy who took a needed drug and literally raised the cost up 4000 percent?!"

"Can you imagine what the Chinchilla would have done?"

"Chinchilla?! Why are you talking about a Chinchilla?! He took Daraprim that cost $13.50 per pill and made it $750 per pill over night! He called the move 'Altruistic!'. He did a bad thing! Not a mythical Chinchilla... Shkreli actively harmed people and called his actions good for everyone!"

"That Chinchilla would have made it $1000 dollars. Bullet dodged."

well chinchillas do have beady little eyes and hearts of darkness that plot the destruction of mankind

I do hope the minority of paranoid users in this chat consider discussing what has happened rather than attack the legitimacy of the news with rumors and disrespect of professional sources. It is like announcing "I am not well-versed in politics and like the alt-right."

So where were you when you realized the United States president is a traitor and spy for Russia?

Watergate was a drop in the bucket compared to this flood of corruption.

Epyc Wynn:
I do hope the minority of paranoid users in this chat consider discussing what has happened rather than attack the legitimacy of the news with rumors and disrespect of professional sources. It is like announcing "I am not well-versed in politics and like the alt-right."

So where were you when you realized the United States president is a traitor and spy for Russia?

Watergate was a drop in the bucket compared to this flood of corruption.

When an intelligence agency (I forget which one) was able to confirm that all of the Conversations in the British Dossier happened and happened at their correct times. That was a month or two before he got into office...

Catnip1024:
1) First things first, in light of further evidence that has come through today, I'm inclined to believe that this did take place. However, the exact nature of what was revealed remains to be seen. If it was "Oh, by the way, we think IS might be able to fit explosives in a laptop", well, no shit. Most people could deduct that from the laptop ban on flights. It is still wrong to pass on information provided by allies without consulting them, however.

2) I heard an "unnamed source" say that Obama was a lizardman. He saw it with his own eyes, apparently. Shall we start dissecting him to check?

If we start accepting unproven evidence from either side, it's fake news. Give me proper evidence, not "he said, she said".

Sure. It was Israel.

Our once biggest ally.

I'm sure that moved our stock up with our other allies.

Zontar:

Adam Jensen:
Believe whatever you want. It's not like it's going to last very long so enjoy it while you can.

Funny how people have been saying this for 7 months now and yet it never comes.

Asita:

Zontar:

Also, remind me, didn't outlets like the Washington Post claim that Russia was blackmailing Trump because of something to do with urination in a hotel that turned out to be a 4chan hoax? Really not believing the media without agencies taking action at this point, and for good reason, they've lost it and have no right to complain about having lost it.

Well first of all, I think you're thinking about BuzzFeed. Second of all, best I can tell the 4chan thing is specious at best and in at least one respect illustrates the desperate eagerness of Trump's base to jump at the idea of news being proved fake. 4Chan claimed to have deliberately fed disinformation to Rick Watson...which people jumped on to claim that a [unverified] dossier from Christopher Steele was false.

The entire Piss Gate incident turned out to be fabricated and had no basis in reality. Every outlet that reported it made a fool of themselves given the fact that literally nothing backed up the initial claim. It was quite funny to watch, though it's sad that people still think the people who fell for that are somehow competent.

I repeat, so uh, how did that whole PizzaGate thing turn out for ya?

pookie101:

ObsidianJones:

CaitSeith:
It's funny to see lots of people dealing with all this by imagining how worse things would be under Clinton's administration. Everyone has their way to deal with the harsh reality I guess...

It is a curious way to go about things, isn't it?

"God, can you imagine what would happen if a Chinchilla was in charge of Turning Pharmaceuticals instead of Martin Shkreli? God, we're lucky we didn't have a Chinchilla in charge."

"... Wait, Martin SHKRELI? The guy who took a needed drug and literally raised the cost up 4000 percent?!"

"Can you imagine what the Chinchilla would have done?"

"Chinchilla?! Why are you talking about a Chinchilla?! He took Daraprim that cost $13.50 per pill and made it $750 per pill over night! He called the move 'Altruistic!'. He did a bad thing! Not a mythical Chinchilla... Shkreli actively harmed people and called his actions good for everyone!"

"That Chinchilla would have made it $1000 dollars. Bullet dodged."

well chinchillas do have beady little eyes and hearts of darkness that plot the destruction of mankind

A...straw chinchilla, one might say.

One could even consider it...

...

StrawChilla!

Epyc Wynn:
So where were you when you realized the United States president is a traitor and spy for Russia?

Also worth pointing out that the President has the authority to declassify information, according to the BBC article on the story. There is nothing illegal or treacherous about what he has done, it's just fucking stupid.

Catnip1024:

Agema:
But that is much like the essence of "fake news", isn't it?

Fling mud irrespective of its validity. Up-value the unlikely and devalue the likely. Subject reasonable and reptuable sources to intense scrutiny and suspicion, and give unreasonable and disreputable sources an easy pass. Inveigle, obfuscate, deceive.

No, the essence of fake news is stories with no concrete evidence. Regardless of which side. If Stephen Hawking suddenly said that there were molemen ready to launch an attack if he didn't win an Oscar, and he had interviewed a reliable source regarding this, it is irrelevant how reputable he was previously, there is no fricking evidence and the story is clearly to forward his own ends.

Critical thinking means being sceptical of everything, not picking and choosing.

I'd like to offer some additional thoughts on this, and hopefully this doesn't come across as too ranty but the Seth Rich case boils my blood. So here goes...

"Fake news" as a term has been thrown around too much by too many people, and I think it's important to know that the practice of initiating misinformation campaigns in the media is an old one. The "news" may not be "fake" per se, but it lacks authenticity of any kind. The Seth Rich case, sadly, demonstrates this all too well.

Here's one of the oldest tricks in the misinformation campaign playbook: a party decides to spread misinformation in the press about a political enemy, either as a direct attack on that adversary or as a way to obfuscate or displace the party's own bad press. They decide the best way to do this is to spread an unsubstantiated but highly scandalous claim in the media to support an existing whisper campaign/conspiracy theory.

But here's the challenge: the party knows that with such a scandalous claim, even the more partisan media will need *some* proof rather than just the claims of a random source. So the party approaches it one of two ways: 1) they begin shopping the "story" around to different big media outlets, hoping that someone will take it on face value without verifying the authenticity of the claim, or 2) they don't shop it to big media outlets at all and instead go to smaller media that have less editorial quality control. Local TV affiliates are a perfect example of this. They've been used time and again over the years for these types of campaigns because they generally have less standards for what they will put on the air, and, as the saying goes, "if it bleeds, it leads." So the party gets one single network affiliate to bite on the story.

And that's all they need because the news cycle takes over and other outlets jump in. And this is key: the big media outlets that would NEVER have touched the one source story with unsubstantiated claims are now, for example, picking up the story and saying "According to a Fox 25 report..." instead of saying "According to a random private investigator who has no affiliation with the Rich family and who was unssable to produce ANY evidence of his claims..." For exmaple, U.S. News and World Report wouldn't have touched this report, let alone run the story without contacting the Rich family and Metro DC police. But hey, they're more than happy to parrot a hugey scandalous claim from another outlet that 1) they can wipe their hands of and not claim any responsibility for, and 2) gain A LOT of eyeballs from.

And THAT is how a misinformation campaign succeeds. It exploits a vulnerability in the news business -- it's okay to repeat rumors as long as another outlet publishes it first -- and it takes advantage of the media and the public's appetite for controversy and scandal.

One the report is in the media, it won't really matter how much it's refuted. The point isn't necessarily that people fully believe it, but if it provides just a small amount of smoke (in this case, for the theory that Clinton had Mark Rich killed) AND it overshadows the existing negative press for the party behind the misinformation campaign, then it's a success. And it's a low cost/risk and high reward endeavor. You don't even really need a paid workforce to support it. If the party has enough people who will spread and push the story, draw up images in Microsoft Paint with red arrows, and concoct wild theories about how a legitimate, sourced story in the news is fake because THIS scandalous story has dropped just minutes earlier (LOL, as if a story like the WaPost's Trump story can be written, let alone reported/researched, in such a short period of time), then that's really all you need for the misinformation campaign to be successful. And they probably know full well that people are claiming the scandalous rumor is being tossed out to obfuscate the real news, so what do they do? They turn the accusation around -- No, YOU are trying to obfuscate. YOU are the one that's spreading fake news. It's misinformation camapign tactics 101. And in the case of Mark Rich, it makes me physically ill.

Catnip1024:

Epyc Wynn:
So where were you when you realized the United States president is a traitor and spy for Russia?

Also worth pointing out that the President has the authority to declassify information, according to the BBC article on the story. There is nothing illegal or treacherous about what he has done, it's just fucking stupid.

Not illegal, but potentially still treacherous. Though difficult to prove, and a GOP legislature is absolutely not going to move on it.

Now if, say, Obama had done something even remotely similar, they'd be calling for his head on pike.

Catnip1024:
No, the essence of fake news is stories with no concrete evidence.

Wrong.

Fake news is not just news lacking concrete evidence. It's news with transparently no regard for evidence of any sort whatsoever. It is not just possibilities, poorly defended rumour, accidental mistakes. It is bullshit deliberately packaged to misinform and mislead.

Critical thinking means being sceptical of everything, not picking and choosing.

No. Critical thinking is subjecting things to rigorous forms of reasoned analysis. It's not doubting things for the principle of doubting things.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here