FAKE NEWS CNN
Keywords
Trending Content
| +95 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 24 | 4h | |
| +37 | Interviews Are So Fake | 24 | 2h | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 20 | 13h | |
| +29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 7h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 6d | |
| +24 | Non-Competes Banned | 16 | 59m | |
| +22 | Ideas for things to do with a free semester before starting ft? | 9 | 1d | |
| +20 | Sabotaging Peers to Get Ahead? | 34 | 3d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 1d | |
| +17 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 4h |
Career Resources
CNN - doesn't like getting 'bullied' by Trump and cries wolf and plays the victim after months of nasty comments towards the president, then doxxing some kid and bullies him into not making fun of their shitty reporting. You can't make this stuff up
He isn't some kid, this myth has been debunked. I disagree with CNN's actions but let's state it how it is, he is a middle aged man. You claiming he is a kid lets me know you didn't look into what you're talking about enough or you are just pushing a false narrative.
Good to know that violent anti-semitism falls under "making fun of shitty reporting"
Actually the original meme was created by a kid, just not the version that Trump posted. That was a remix that was made by some middle aged dude who synced the original with the audio from the piece and resized it and did further editing. Both sides are technically right and wrong. Also anyone who stands on the "that reddit guy is a racist, misogynist, anti-Semite" is a fucking idiot that doesn't understand reddit or the internet for that matter. The dude was posting in a place that was specifically designed as a place for people to post the most ridiculous off-color jokes and other shit that doesn't fly in civilized society. No one there takes that shit seriously, that's the whole point.
Every news station has bias and sensationalizes unnecessary things to get ratings. You can't call CNN fake news without doing the same for Fox News. And really Trump just looks childish and unpresidential with all this petty bs on Twitter. Like instead of being sitting around and tweeting about media companies/members that don't think your a good president, do something that will MAKE them see you as a good president. President's of the past have been too worried about losing their base by working across the aisle but in reality more people are centrist than extreme conservative or liberal. Trump could become a great president by doing what those before him haven't done and pivoting center and working with both parties to actually make america great, but I digress. CNN isn't fake news(should be on the same line as the guardian in this graph), Fox News isn't fake news(just partisan), Trump should worry about being president, making good policy that benefits all america, and not tweeting things to incite the extreme right and promote distrust.
Just a few points/questions:
There is nothing Trump can do that CNN would ever admit makes him a good president - even if he took every policy straight from HRC.
Trump has been almost solely focused on policy and advancing his campaign promises, for which he was elected, while CNN and other news organizations have focused on Russian collusion and other non-policy related issues.
Didn't all of the republicans run against Trump based on the fact he was not a real conservative? I don't understand how people can say that Trump is an extremist - don't you think Trump is trying to propose centrist plans that even the extreme republicans cannot support? Are all of the democrats so liberal that they cannot find three to support the health plan as it is, or ANY OTHER policy that Trump supports for that matter?
That's not true or else polls wouldn't show him consistently losing support and favorability. If he did enough to get his approval even over 50% the narrative would change.
Trump has been trying to advance some specific promises, but it is getting held up because between him and congress they aren't willing to give at all which is leading to gridlock. To get what you want in congress republican policies have to move center the same way liberal policies had to move center to get passed under the Obama administration. So all that's left is Trump not getting most of his promises through legislation but through executive orders or in the case of Gorsuch even altering the rules.
I think he ran on the extremes of the Tea Party base honestly, I felt the ran more on the fact that he wasn't a real politician(which is true) and he did not have experience. I don't think he is proposing centrist plans, as the health plan leaves 22 million uninsured which isn't good for the middle-lower middle class constituents. I think that if he tried to actually fix the problems with Obamacare, which there are many problems with it, instead of repealing it and replacing it with a much worse option(or even repealing without any replacement to use) in terms of getting both sides behind it. It's not just that Democrats are too liberal and saying that is honestly really shortsighted because people on both sides are willing to come to compromise for the betterment of policy and our country. There's a reason republicans speak out against Trump as well, and it's not because they're "too liberal".
Fareed zakaris GPS show is on cnn.
And while he is generally critical of trump, he has on occasion extended favorable appraisals of the administration (missile strike on syria after chemical attacks, willingness to challenge nato allies on defence spending)
Huffington Post is considered "analytical"?
Maybe they should put The Odyssey Online in the same bucket
don't pay too much attention to the infographic, it has NYT and WaPo as non-partisan. this was merely an example of how people used to view CNN
yeah but frankly, CNN is still the lesser of the three evils (the others being MSNBC and Fox)
I've seen that chart a few times, conveys the message well but the positioning of several names is highly suspect. Got a few bones to pick (mini-rant):
a) All news organizations in the center circle, with maybe the exception of Reuters, are center left or left. I'm pretty conservative, but still always read the NYT, WaPo, etc. quite often to get the other side of the story. But post-election I swear a good deal of their journalists and opinion writers have become so unhinged/hysterical. Check out this piece in the Globe (a paper along the same vein): http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/07/03/donald-trump-isn-normal-n… - I could go line by line and shit all over the author's logic. The hyperbole is embarrassing, as is the author's complete disregard of history, not to mention referencing Orwell's 1984 while clearly not having a goddamn clue what it is about. Yes I may be biased but I really think the print media, which has always been more restrained than the TV garbage, decided to throw caution to the wind post-election and fly their progressive colors loud and proud. Even the FT which I'm all about has turned decidedly more towards the center left (but I still
Trump took TWO scoops of ice cream, is this grounds for impeachment?
I'm glad to see the media being called on their shit. I think going after a private citizen for making a silly meme is what will do it for most people - I have some pretty liberal friends that were shocked by that.
Yeah not trying to sound like a snob or anything, but most mainstream media sources are dogshit.
There isn't a single contentious issue out there simple enough to be covered in 1000 words or less.
By all means, people should read the mainstream publications to stay updated on a daily basis.
But to be truly informed on economics, foreign affairs, impending policy decisions, etc. requires digging into primary sources (the actual contents of a bill itself rather than whatever Fox/HuffPost say about it) or reading long-form articles / whitepapers from respected thinktanks and agencies.
Imagine the $ you could make if you started an actual non-partisan news channel that just reported facts and stats.
probably none, because it'd be boring as shit
There are actually several podcasts that do this and they make decent money by doing a value for value model where the fans directly financially support as well as do research and production work.
I actually don't think this would be possible to do. The media doesn't tell you what to think, they tell you what to think about, by virtue of what topics they focus on. Subtle but crucial difference
Simply by presenting certain facts and stats and events over others (since it wouldn't be feasible to cover every single thing), and because certain types of information are more closely related to certain ideologies, such a news outlet would unavoidably lead to a bias
I hate to say it, but a show like Hannity and Colmes (back in the day) was pretty interesting. Until Colmes was ousted, they did try to present both sides on that show. I think we need more of that, rather than claiming to be bipartisan which isn't possible to do. Just make sure it's run by a more moderate organization as opposed to Fox News
Did you make this graph? lol If you did, it looks good... I like it! It condenses basically how I feel about news outlets too haha, nicely done.
Is Al-Jazeera just not popular in the US? I personally love getting my news from there, I find that it's a great place to find non-partisan news that's also reputable (although reputable and non-partisan seem to be synonymous these days). Nobody seems to know about this news outlet though.
I did not make the graph. al jazeera is not popular, nor is RT, but I agree it's good to get a non US/western perspective on news every now and again
Al-Jazeera actually produces some solid content, provided they aren't covering any Qatar-related news.
South China Morning Post is another good foreign source (for now I guess), and as long as you take it with a grain of salt, I find China Daily worthwhile to get the Chinese govts official view on things.
RT, on the other hand, is (and has been) an essential cog in the Kremlin's propaganda / disinformation campaign to undermine the west. It has zero credibility as a news source; don't even bother with it.
Yeah, I knew that about RT so I tend to take it with a grain of salt. I have not heard of South China Morning Post or China Daily though, thanks for sharing.
Come on, give RT a little credit for being the only network that gives Ron Paul any airtime. That, and they got some smoking talent.
RT has as much credibility in covering world news as any MSM outlet does, hell these days I'd argue even more because they actually cover stories that the MSM here won't even discuss. No one thinks that their view is completely objective but it is far from pure propaganda. Voice of America on the other hand is pure propaganda.
The Times is unbiased in order to hide their liberal tilt. I do think they have a mission of unbiased reporting that somehow gets lost in the busy daily starbuck activities of its reporters.
At what point is it unethical to be 'nonpartisan'? What would either party have to advocate for in order for everyone to be like, you know what, maybe we shouldn't be treating X and Y as if they are morally or intellectually comparable policies?
I'm curious to hear more about your thoughts on this. I'm of the opinion that good journalism has a duty to report the facts as well as analysis from different points of view. an example of a news story I'd like to see:
legislation comes out media outlet picks main facts (how much it increases spending, how it's paid for, what its goal is) interviews of high ranking officials from both parties (say comments from both pelosi and ryan) analysis from a couple of think tanks, just the facts, no spin. /end of segment
however, where this gets cloudy is if there is blatant partisanship, seeking opinions and validation from those who share the opinion of the journalist.
as the saying goes, with great duty comes great responsibility, and since people believe the news to be factual, I have a difficult time with the notion it's ok for the news to blur the line between fact and opinion (leading to partisanship).
Nuanced analyses from think tanks, etc. take time to develop. There are news articles from CNN/NYT/WaPo/etc. that I would say mostly conform to the ideal reporting style that you've described. You just have to be willing to sort through the large volume of quick takes that have become necessary in the social media age. Journalists also run into the problem of one side being unwilling to comment on a story. I've definitely seen tons of stories regarding major legislation where officials from one party declined to comment.
The broader point I was trying to make is that there comes a point in which it is both absurd and unethical to treat certain views as merely an alternative analysis. If Richard Spencer was elected to office and advocated for the peaceful ethnic cleansing of non-white people from the U.S., would it be the journalistic responsibility of the media to report on that policy objectively? Similarly, if a member of antifa was elected to office and advocated for the firing of all police officers, should the media have to report on that idea seriously as well?
Agree or disagree, it seems that the media has taken this stance towards Trump and the GOP as a whole. In their view, the needle has been pushed so far that that it's no longer ethical to report on GOP rhetoric/policies with an objective tone.
If the media has indeed become more partisan towards democrats, is it because the media has changed or the policies/rhetoric of the two political parties? While it's certainly a combination of both, I tend to think it's mostly because of the latter.
In my version of a perfect news world the news group would run two segments on every major story the first part would be what you said and the second part would be the writer or news persons editorialized take on the piece. These sections would be clearly marked so that readers can easily understand where the journalism ends and where the editorialization begins.
I think that's what many progressive journalists have convinced themselves of - they believe they have the moral high ground and that their ideology/policies/etc. are assuredly the correct ones - thus it is ethical and appropriate for them to try and "lead" the audience to particular conclusions, in fact, it would be irresponsible of them not to.
First off, WaPo needs to be moved to Skews Liberal/Hyperpartisan Liberal. Almost everything they have published has been extremely left leaning. NPR and NYT need to be moved closer to Skews Liberal given their left leaning bent. Otherwise, it's a pretty good infograph.
CNN is an interesting case though because of this whole Gifstorm. While I won't get into the intricacies of this, it is something that reflects the reality of the world we're in. Part of the reason why no one trusts the Media is because there is no Dan Rather, Woodward and Bernstein, Tom Brokaw, Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Walter Winchill, or Robert Novak out there today with a truly fair and balanced newscast. What's happening with CNN further exacerbates the problem and really highlights the issue of media bias. We know Fox News and MSNBC are going to skew to the right and left, and the idea of CNN is that it's supposed to be right in the middle. I honestly don't think we need reforms on the Press, but I think we need more accountability from the Press. This entire situation has really highlighted the problem of bias creeping into the news and we need to find a way to reduce that to produce a more fair and unbiased news broadcast that people can actually listen without seeing the blatant bias in.
well said
You're being too kind to the NYT; that paper has gone off the fuckin rails post-election.
Their non-political coverage is still pretty good. I think everyone has gone off the rails for the most part post-election. In general, I will still read the business section of the NYT and watch for the global news. For the political coverage, I will avoid it at all costs.
The more you know: Walter Winchell was the epitome of fake news. He was a mouth piece for McCarthy in the 50s and accused anyone he didn't like as a communist sympathizer. His name at the time was synonymous with libel.
Oh, I'm aware of Winchell's ties to McCarthyism. You also forgot he was a mouthpiece for FDR during the early days of WWII when he was one of the first, if not the first, outspoken critic of Hitler and the rise of Fascism and Nazism in Europe. That wasn't the point I was making by referencing him though - his contracts with various media companies all had indemnities that would hold them harmless for the things Winchell said, which meant it was all on him. Contrast that to CNN and the way the GIFstorm is playing out. No one (in particular Andrew Kaczynski for the initial "CNN reserves the right to reveal his identity" tweet, and Chris Cuomo for tweeting and then deleting a tweet that said he wondered if CNN made the right call not revealing who the guy was) is being held liable for what was said at CNN. CNN head honcho Jeff Zucker is playing the victim card, coming after Trump for constantly "bullying" CNN despite their consistently negative coverage of him dating back to the election. The falling out from this entire deal, simply because no one wants to take responsibility will have a ripple effect, particularly with the AT&T/Time Warner deal. Winchell, for all his failings, gossip mongering, and accusations, was on his own when he made his accusations, which is something that puts him in rarefied air as far as I'm concerned.
Winchell also changed the face of media, some for the good, some for the bad. However, he was able to wield his popularity for causes he believed in and, despite his infamy, managed to do some good with the power he wielded.
guys, the entire world is to my left and everyone's views should be updated to reflect mine
lol yup
Anyone who thinks NPR is "left" has literally no perspective
Actually I believe it is the opposite, the reason no one trusts the media is because literally every reporter and anchor believes they are the next Woodward and Bernstein and they rush to get their story out as fast a possible with out verifying anything. The sheer number of retractions that WAPO does everyday should alarm everyone and seriously impact their credibility. The problem is that people don't want news, they want their biases confirmed. Also people don't trust the news because quite frankly the media has spent the better part of a decade lecturing to the American people as well as just people in general that we are all stupid idiots who can't possibly know what we think is important and therefore we must have the people on TV tell us what we should think.
I don't see the media changing. This country is very tied up in one's own beliefs. Individuals are all more empowered and are exploiting that. It's a behind the scenes driving force causing the political climate, not the other way around. With that happening, our institutions got infected, so there's not something that can be done to change it from the outside. We're stuck in this dynamic, at least until cooler times prevail. Social society (feminism) is hitting its pubescent stage. Once this undercurrent dies down, politics will be boring again.
It's really terrible actually. I used to subscribe to SlingTV so that I could get two channels: ESPN for sports & CNN for news. I've finally cut ties with SlingTV because I see absolutely zero value in CNN these days because the slander is just blatant at this point with really no substance beyond the hollow propaganda they are trying to push. Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper need to get out of there before their careers are forever stained by the shit they're forced to report on.
CNN was old reliable right up until the end of the 2016 election. John King should have won a fucking Emmy for how well he was working that Microsoft Surface electoral map on election night. Wolf Blitzer's orchestration of the entire night kept me absolutely glued, commercials and all, until the wee hours of the evening.
I digress... I'll stick to chewing on the loose coffee grinds at the bottom of my cup while reading the cynical ZeroHedge which although bombards me with shitty ads, ultra-bearish sentiment and it's fair share of tin-foil hat losers, it's the quality of journalism that I'm looking for when diving into a topic. I've also got the Bloomberg app on my Roku which has a "Best of the Week" compilation of all, high-level, business news which I throw on weekend mornings to catch up on anything I may have missed.
So for now, fuck mainstream media. It's wasting my time.
Agree 100%. Since the election I've cancelled my WSJ, Economist and NYTimes subscriptions. The constant bashing, smugness and "sky is falling" mentality is tiresome. So for now I get my news from Zerohedge and Twitter.
Also, does anyone even watch CNN anymore?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/06/cnn-slides-to-13-in-cable-rankings/
Looks like no...
it's sad that most americans get their news from Fox & MSNBC. talk about echo chambers
Dont u dare bash my beloved Economist.
Actually, though, im interested to hear about qualms that anyone might have with it. I find that it is perhaps the best source to stay updated weekly on developments around the world spanning anything from politics/economics to scientific advancements.
It is unabashed defender of the global liberal order, which often leads it down the path of trump bashing, but have you truly found this bad enough to justify cancelling the subscription?
Truly interested, just to see if im missing something/am a blind lamb. How are 140 character tweets and sensationalist zerohedge articles any better?
I saw that and thought it was hilarious that CNN's highest rated show comes after the Tucker Carlson replay.... just let that sink in.
Economist is trash now. WSJ is ok in the financial section, rest I toss. NYTimes has always been good for nothing but toilet paper. I'll maybe read the wine or book section. WasPo hahahah, worthless.
is CNN really trying to dox someone for making a gif of them? I heard it was some 15 year old kid but I don't know what is actually going on with that story... if anyone knows lemme know cause that sounds weird as hell lol
also, Salon and Breitbart (please never read these, i can't even look) are like the exact same thing but different sides of the aisle. these have to be the worst...
links in the OP
yeah but does anyone know what actually happened and who the real guy was? someone told me it was some 15 year old kid who was going to go on the news and clear things up, then i have been hearing a bunch of other weird shit about it
don't know what is going on haha
It's not sad at all that Trump is mocking CNN. It's quite literally fake news. A mouthpiece for the democrats.
This is the organization that, beyond publishing numerous objectively false stories (Russia took down power grids, Trump removed MLK bust, Comey never told Trump he wasn't under investigation, the dossier, etc.), illegally gave Hillary Clinton debate questions before a debate. Talk about trying to influence an election.
This is an organization that spent literally more than 95% of its air time pushing Trump-Russia conspiracy theories with no actual evidence whatsoever. This is an organization that pushes anti-Trump propaganda based on hearsay from unnamed sources (sometimes from just one unnamed source).
It's fake news. Simple as that. It's not journalism.
Can't CNN just go back to six months of non-stop coverage of MH370? Those were the good ole' days.
It "quite literally" is not.
Fake news is deliberate misinformation and hoaxes.
Biased news is not #FakeNews just because you don't agree with the bias.
It quite literally is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2G360HrSAs
Try again.
Edit: they broke the most basic principles of journalism to push a narrative that had no evidence and which they (at least some) knew was untrue. They did it for ratings, as we now know and because of bias.
I like the infographic in principle, but I do believe it is fundamentally flawed.
The 2016 elections ushered in a sea change with respect to how average voters view the left/right, neoliberal/conservative dichotomy. In fact, not just ushered in a sea change, but I would argue discarded it entirely. Trump rode in on a wave of nationalism. His ascendance was the upshot of the American people's rejection of the tide of neoconservatism/globalism that had been on the rise since the Reagan assassination attempt (after which, G.H.W. Bush assumed the defacto role of president). In retrospect, unless you start splitting hairs. the respective policies of G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama have been virtually identical with respect to foreign and domestic policy, where it matters. Even with Trump in the White House, there's a clear demarcation between mainstream Republicans -- McCain, Ryan, Graham, et al -- and the Trump faction. To wit, ask yourself how different a hypothetical McCain presidency would have been from a hypothetical Hillary Clinton presidency? I'd venture, not a whole lot.
The graph would mostly stay unchanged if you replaced "Liberal" with "Globalist" and "Conservative" with "Nationalist", except that most of what lies in the middle of the road per the graph would need to shift about two clicks to the left. In particular, The Economist needs to fall under Hyper-Globalist.
Side note -- in practice, Trump's foreign policy has demonstrated shades of neoconservatism, particularly in the middle east. I'll give him another year or two to see what materializes out of his rhetoric.
All of this. SB'd
well said
It seems as though, many who were leaning in a particular direction are now far leaning and those in the center have picked their sides either right or left. Unfortunately few (if any) news organizations are actually in the center, even the WSJ is slightly right leaning since "Big T Dawg" took office. NPR I would say is also far left from center w/ regards to their political coverage.
I think we need to re-categorize what a "News" organization really is. At the end of the day you begin to realize that no one is really providing any news. They're media platforms that are spitting a political agenda. The street goes both ways... CNN spends 90% of their on-air minutes talking about Trump colluding with Russia, and Fox spends 90% of their on-air minutes talking about CNN talking about Trump colluding with Russia.
It's like that ole quote, "If you don't read the news you're uninformed, if you read too much news you're misinformed."
Edit: I would love to see a graph depicting where the news organizations think they lie on the political spectrum. I think we would all share a good laugh.
Nothing new here. CNN is just an extension of Langley. They peddle all kinds of crap and simulated events in order to drive ratings and distract people from what is actually happening. I'm okay if a network wants to be partisan (e.g. Bloomberg, Fox) as long as that is clear and easily to adjust for. But when a network literally fabricates events and facts in order to progress a certain narrative, then it just becomes propaganda. That's part of why I like to read South China Morning Post, Al Jazeera, and RT (along w/ Infowars, Zerohedge type sources which are often much closer to the actual mark of objectivity and accuracy than the mainstream sources).
How did you make that connection between CNN and Langley? Genuinely curious, as I've always kept up with natsec news/rumors but haven't heard that come up.
Hard to pinpoint exactly how I realized this but it's pretty clear when you start to pay close attention to how they report the "news" (*and more importantly what they fail to report). My personal view is that CIA is involved in staffing and staging the various false flag events and the deepstate controlled media assets are responsible for disseminating and curating the narrative for the viewing public. As a side note, I have a lot of respect for some of the agents who work there; e.g. Anderson Cooper is a phenomenal intelligence professional. I mean the guy is really good. Note that he supposedly "interned" at CIA for two summers in college. He's also a Vanderbilt which leads to the obvious question of "why this"? Also highly likely he's ex Skull & Bones, but best not to go down that rat hole. In any case, the deep state/mainstream media incest is fairly well documented at this point so I'm sure you can find other connections if you're interested.
Yeah sure, okay dude. Keep living up wherever you are in the clouds.
Realize that I am probably out of consensus on this. And that's fine.
In other news it looks like Yellowstone is about to blow...
Vox with a real hot take today:![here](a href="https://i.redd.it/dm7und0db18z.png">https://i.redd.it/dm7und0db18z.png</a)
i guess somehow they twisted those words into meaning... nevermind i can't even attempt to figure out their thought process
"Four legs good, two legs bad."
gonna have to give that book another read haha
Before I say this, I just want to say I definitely don't like Trump. Now, with that being said, I just love the hypocrisy on the left. When Trump shits on NYT, CNN, etc. everyone thinks he wants to be a tyrant and revoke our freedom of speech. But when Obama would go up and shit on Fox News, the left straight up couldn't get enough of it; they loved every fucking second. Obama may have shit on Fox more eloquently, but he definitely still shit on them often.
woah woah where is Telemundo at on that graph?
a la derecha
"Fake news" is news that is fake, like "pizza gate" or whatever, not news that has a political bias opposite your own or news that is constructed erroneously and then later is retracted.
CNN may not be consistently stellar reporting, but it is not fake.
What do you call constantly reporting something that isn't "there" (Russia), with even their own reporters saying its just for ratings.
Goes beyond poor reporting when you know it isn't true. Sounds "fake" to me.
Russia isn't there huh? Cue Eric Trump Jr. releasing his new e-mails lmao. You sycophants will not accept that there is definitely a there there. I mean we are choking on Russia smoke right now but people want to claim there is no fire, it's both sad and hilarious at the same time.
p.s. I will comment on this thread more extensively when I get above water at work. Went to Thailand this past week so I'm swamped today.
As for why outlets like NYT, WaPo etc. appear to be moving further left with their political reporting, we have to remember that we are in an entirely different political context. Trump has changed things by publicly undermining news outlets, the whole making fun of the disabled reporter, and attacking countless other individuals at nearly every outlet except breitbart. He has made this fight personal for not just those individuals but the media at large, and so it's no surprise to me to see these outlets shifting left specifically in their reporting about trump, his admin, and other politicians who strongly support him. I don't think it would be the same for another conservative president (it wasn't for bush). Perhaps you can argue chicken or the egg here, but as I recall all other recent presidents were at some point exposed to some bad, unprofessional, or generally in poor taste language, but they never brought the fight to the ground the way trump has (literally though, after last weekend).
Secondly, while I do think there has been some overall leftward movement by NYT et al., I think the polarization of politics has shifted the baseline in many cases where it simply seems some outlets are moving left with their reporting, certainly in comparison to the places the Tea Party, the Blaze, Breitbart, and talk radio have taken the conversation to since the start of the Obama era. Fox has also noticeably drifted right during that time period as well IMO.
You might want to revisit your timeline there, the media made it personal with Trump long before he made it personal with them. I personally have no issue with him personally fighting with the media, you have to realize that basically since he announced his run they have collectively done nothing but run hit pieces on him.
If you want to understand what is going on, study the concept of the Overton Window.
THE REAL Question I have is how do smart people like Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer and the rest of those clowns buy into the agenda. I get a little bit of partisanship, but their coverage is bananas. Zero valuable information. Ive heard more informed discussions at vagina monologues. And those fuckers are nuts.
Wolf Blitzer is a hack who will say anything he is told to, and Anderson Cooper is a company man (CIA) and has always been. He always backs up the CIA regardless of the situation.
I invite any Trump apologist on this thread to tell me what Russian news would cause them to withdraw support of the President. Today we have emails published by Trump Jr. himself containing the lines "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" and half the country who screamed BENGHAZI for five years wants us to move on immediately and focus on the "real issues".
The party of so-called patriotism is aiding and abetting treason, full stop. This website is supposedly full of the smartest six-figure-earning kids Wall Street has to offer, and some of you can't see the forest for the trees. I voted GOP for the first 8 years of eligibility, but never, ever again.
I think we're just interpreting these events differently. I didn't vote for Trump, still probably won't vote for him in 2020 (I think he's intellectually dishonest with his job promises, and I identify as more of a fiscal cons), but my whole thing is I don't see anything wrong with Trump Jr's emails. you seem to interpret this as "hacking the election," whereas I interpret it as Russia, who has a common enemy with Trump in HRC, disseminating information to the public.
what would cause me to pivot on this is if, as I mentioned above, if there's evidence of actual election fraud. release of information and trying to sway opinion is not fraud, meddling with votes is fraud.
Thanks for responding. Hacking = changing vote totals, which we have not yet seen any evidence of (though apparently Russia tried in several states to access voter machines. They are certainly guilty of "meddling", and the Trump camp colluding with a foreign adversarial government to spread misinformation, or collect opposition research, certainly qualifies as treason to me.
I think it's the definition and magnitude of meddling that's the question here. if Russia thinks Trump is good for Russia, it's in their self interest to meddle, just like if America thinks Saddam Hussein is bad for America, it was in our best interest to meddle.
meddling is something Americans do on a regular basis, my question is when does a meddle become fraud or some other illegal action, and that's what the media is failing to state. they simply promote conspiracy theories without actually saying what they really mean (we think Russia is the reason Trump got elected, we just can't prove it).
I think you are conflating two ideas 1) Russia meddled in our election; and 2) The Trump camp welcomed and assisted them. #1 happens all over the world, and I have no doubt we do the same elsewhere. #2 is treason
if you're talking the letter of the law here, I'm undereducated in that, I'm more interested in the philosophical/ethical implications. my entire point of the comments I've made today is that both sides were self interested in promoting their images of themselves and influencing the american people to vote for them (which is what campaigning is). the disagreement seems to stem from the fact that one party got it from a foreign country with whom we were at odds for decades and that party won. but enough about that, I've made my point.
because I'm not up to speed, and this is not a snarky question, how does welcoming information leaks qualify as treason? I was always under the impression that treason is giving enemies classified information (like Snowden), which even in that situation, one can't dispute that it's illegal, but we can dispute whether or not it ought to be illegal.
Here is what we know, factually and irrefutably:
1) Trump JR, Manafort, and Kushner (at the very least) were told that the Russians were pushing for Trump and that they had potentially classified information they wanted to leak about HRC to the Trump team. It's also pretty clear in hindsight the Russian team told the Trump team they were looking to "influence" the election, but the Trump team has continued to play the "we are all idiots you can't make inferences" defense
2) The Trump team outwardly said they wanted this information. Days after the email but before the meeting Donald announced publicly he would be dropping a bombshell on HRC.
3) That members of the Trump team have continually lied about meetings with the Russians during the election, as well as any knowledge of Russian interferences, including Donald Trump himself.
What's been proven in the public eye suggests illegal activity, but there hasn't been a smoking gun yet. That's because welcoming and using classified Intel, knowing and encouraging The leaks of classified Intel to wikileaks (Which is essentially a state actor at this point), and encouraging these actions with promises of raising sanctions all would be illegal under campaign finance laws even if they never received actual information (Not treason, though, that term gets thrown around too much).
thanks for the reply. seems to me that if Trump's team may have gotten chalk on their shoes, we just haven't found the smoking gun of if they actually crossed the line.
Yea, there is a decent case now you could charge Trump JR. With a felony under campaign finance laws for soliciting contributions from foreign nationals (services/information count), but you couldn't be sure you'd convict him unless we find out there were further conversations. Manafort and Kushner are probably in the clear based on the public info currently.
If we find out that there was government level deal making happening (quid pro quo) then it would be a violation of the Logan act which doesnt allow non government employees to attempt to negotiate for the United States. And if there is evidence that there was specific instruction by the Trump team to commit certain crimes, like hacking the DNC and releasing classified info, now you have a violation of the espionage act.
There are a lot of insinuations and possibilities, and I wouldn't personally be surprised if they went as far as to violate the espionage act, but we definitely need more evidence to keep coming out to get that far. At the very least, they got to the line of violating campaign finance laws and likely went over it just enough to get away with it. But we'll continue to hear more, I'm sure.
I've seen nowhere that you can charge TrumpJr for a felony. I'm pretty sure "information" does not count as a valuable contribution.
Happy to be shown more information though.
Relevant statute here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20
DTJR very likely violates section G. Donations and contributions are specifically stated as "...or other things of value". Which in legalese specifically extends the statute beyond monetary contributions (and has, in the past, been used to mean services, which things like information gathering would easily fall under). You'll likely need more to convict him, but there is enough probable cause you could charge him and likely get an indictment (indictments are an extremely low bar, just having to prove that potentially a crime could have been committed to a majority 51% of a panel). Conviction, on the other hand, I imagine would be hard without further evidence.
Me personally I'd have a very hard time making the leap from information to "other thing of value". The spirit of the clause below seems to be on monetary value. Services does not include information, in my opinion. Me giving you information is not a service if you don't pay me for it.
(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
Yeah I'm sure dirt on HRC that no one else has isn't worth anything of monetary value..
Remove the "dirt on HRC" part. So you're saying you can't accept ANY information whatsoever from a foreign government, at all. That doesn't make sense.
1.) why would you throw out the "dirt on HRC" part, it's an integral factor... 2.) If that information can be used to help your campaign it is inherently of value. I mean that is a pretty easy conclusion to make.
1.) why would you throw the "dirt on HRC" part out, it's an integral factor... Why does the content of the information matter at all? You guys are trying to say information is equal to monetary value under the legal terms. You can't say it counts in one instance and doesn't in the other. My point is information is disseminated all the time. If I tell you something, that doesn't mean I provided you with a service. That's the whole crux of your argument and it doesn't make sense.
2.) If that information can be used to help your campaign it is inherently of value. I mean that is a pretty easy conclusion to make. Who is to decide whether or not the information helps or hurts a campaign? You're jumping to conclusions. What if the lawyer provided information, but DonJr already knew about it. So it provided him with no value whatsoever. What say you then?
1.) The information conveyed was specifically related to "dirt on HRC". This is valuable information for the opposition, period. Your mental gymnastics won't change that. Something can definitely count in one instance and not count in another, a 3 point shot counts when the game clock is still running and doesn't count if you get the shot off after the buzzer. Information can count as valuable in one situation and not count as valuable in another. I don't think anyone with any honesty that employs basic logic can argue that damaging information that isn't already public on an opposition candidate during an election isn't valuable. I mean, you mean to tell me those "grab them by the pussy" tapes couldn't be sold to TMZ or some other media outlet for thousands of dollars before they came out? Of course they could've been. This is common fucking sense but you simply don't care to exercise common sense. It doesn't favor your narrative.
2.) Don Jr. soliciting the information in the first place is a crime, the outcome of the meeting is irrelevant. Whether he knew about it or not he solicited something of value from a foreign national. There is no point in talking about the result as the intent itself is illegal.
I honestly don't know why I came back on this thread to waste my time with individuals who simply don't give a fuck about the truth. Thankfully, we have a special counsel and investigations to sort this out not some WSO partisan shill playing lawyer.
So you can't ask a foreign government for information? Interesting. Because that's what you're saying.
I'm just reading the law and interpreting it. The law as stated is intended to cover contributions or donations, not information.
You seem to like to resort to attacks and name calling. Doesn't help your cause, but you do you.
The law as states covers things of value. Damaging information on an opposition candidate is a thing of value. I mean what is so difficult to grasp about that? You started with a post stating this whole Russia thing is a myth, a media creation. Evidence that clearly displays the intent to collude is presented. You go on to try and explain away said evidence with legal technicalities. You simply don't care about the truth. As for My "name calling" - I don't usually engage in such childish nonsense but I am in such disbelief by the garbage people are typing out in this thread that I'm out of character at the moment.
FYI, this is CNN's legal analyst saying there is nothing legally wrong with what DonJr did:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/341499-cnn-legal-analy…
The intellectual dishonesty on display here is amazing and certainly part of what's wrong with this country. People have become so partisan that they have no problem throwing out common sense, facts, and logic in favor of whatever narrative best satisfies their views.
p.s. MS me all you want, this shit is disgraceful
Actually no 2 is not treason, nor is it technically even illegal if one does not take monetary assistance in exchange for previously defined in kind repayments. One of the most liberal lawyers on TV went on a news program recently where they were discussing treason and he basically said that even if Trump colluded with the Russians to hack the DNC and Hillarys campaign there would be no case for treason.
No Russia did not try to "hack voting machines" that is a completely made up fallacy by people who don't understand anything about networking and what was actually targeted. The Russians gained access to voter registration databases in a few states, what is never mentioned is that the states they "hacked" have publicly available databases that you or I could go to and download at any time. They didn't even have to pay for it let alone penetrate any network to get it.
Also no they are not guilty of meddling, as the definition of that word makes it definitively impossible for them to have meddled, the definition of meddle if you are unaware means they "inserted themselves or interfered in something that they have no concern or are not impacted by in anyway. Which considering the current and prior geopolitical landscape is blatantly false.
The funny part about this is that Trump haters seem to forget that Hillary Clinton actually did try to hack the Russian election and publicly bragged about it. Shes just to god damn dumb and has an ego at least the size of Trumps to assume that there would be no reprimands for doing that. Who gives a fuck if the Russians hacked the DNC and dumped their dirty laundry to the world. Don't commit crimes and do shady shit to push a candidate through the primaries and there wouldn't be any story there. Everyone is obsessed with this "hacking" nonsense but is completely immune to the actual information that came out of it.
And while we're having the debate, here is how Fox chose to cover the news that an un-elected, unqualified family member of the President took his place temporarily at the table at the G-20 global leaders summit. CNN and MSNBC might be left-leaning but Fox is bordering on state-run media propaganda at this point.
but the people whose employee simulated a beheading in ISIS execution style of the President... is just left-leaning?
fox and msnbc are probably both biased as shit too, but come on cnn fucked up in such enormous ways it is almost insane, trying to dox some random person on the internet too?
also thebrofessor in other CNN news, they recently removed their app from the app store, and then re-uploaded it (or updated it or something along those lines) to remove all the 1 star ratings. now people are leaving even more 1 star ratings than before and some are pretty funny.
You mean an educated businesswoman who was asked to sit temporarily by other G20 members. A woman who is part of the Presidents team and is pushing paid family leave for woman and women's issues in business.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/341129-merkel-defends-ivanka-trump-for…
Merkel, who served as the host leader of this year's summit, said at a news conference that it was up to individual nations to decide who represented them, Bloomberg reported.
"The delegations themselves decide, should the president not be present for a meeting, who will then take over and sit in the chair,” Merkel said, according to the report.
“Ivanka Trump was part and parcel of the American delegation, so that is something that other delegations also do. It’s very well known that she works at the White House and is also engaged in certain initiatives.”
The topic at hand reportedly concerned one of Ivanka Trump's projects, the World Bank finance initiative for women entrepreneurs.
--- God forbid you knew what you were talking about.
Delectus eius illo molestiae facere velit. Voluptatem optio soluta aspernatur et inventore libero dolor. Quia reiciendis rem qui vel. Sint molestiae voluptas non ut ipsam consequatur.
Et placeat nemo amet vel corrupti ratione voluptates. Consequatur et non quaerat illo quisquam voluptates vero. Odio aut similique excepturi deleniti fugit. Quia adipisci eligendi placeat sunt deleniti. Dolor inventore voluptatem sed.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Deleniti dolor ex ullam at consectetur distinctio. Et reprehenderit aliquid aliquid id iste et. Itaque libero reprehenderit mollitia rerum.
Accusamus quia corrupti numquam nihil fugit quod quam. Voluptatem voluptatem reiciendis quod expedita molestiae et molestiae aliquid. Occaecati autem est aliquam temporibus. Omnis est occaecati quo qui. Suscipit eum officia nostrum aut aut. Similique voluptas magnam at sit dolorem.
Molestias tenetur molestias eligendi aut. In quia accusamus corporis quibusdam assumenda dolores labore. Distinctio rem illo repellat voluptate et. Perspiciatis assumenda et pariatur non quae. Sit illum accusamus accusantium aut.
Iste alias blanditiis illo rerum. Dolorem et illo eum dolorum illum perferendis. Consequatur necessitatibus consequatur laboriosam quia explicabo animi. Qui voluptatum aut iste. Magni dolorem ut nam voluptas laboriosam exercitationem. Atque tempore qui aut omnis molestiae.
Enim aut omnis facilis ut. Vitae accusantium porro eius doloribus ea quaerat facere.
Doloremque qui illum iste ut quia et. Doloribus eligendi quas optio veritatis quidem quae. At rerum quaerat dolor nisi qui non.
Dolor neque qui nihil est consequuntur. Recusandae repudiandae pariatur sint. Autem laborum quibusdam et repellat voluptatem. Itaque cupiditate ut libero molestiae ab dolor non. Aut quae voluptatem sit fuga.
Cupiditate ratione qui ut porro ducimus ut esse. Sed asperiores voluptatum repudiandae quam consequuntur ut inventore qui.
Quia culpa dolorum ut perspiciatis. Consequatur dolores nostrum voluptatem qui. Similique vel repellendus expedita ducimus. Accusamus asperiores fuga modi veritatis et qui. Sint unde et dolorem voluptas qui minima.
Deleniti accusantium ut iure et ipsa non enim. Eum quia et ipsa aut voluptas porro nesciunt. Et ullam amet unde beatae. Odit assumenda aliquid adipisci. Voluptatibus saepe dolores id ullam.
Iste tempora provident consequatur voluptate aut excepturi. Earum distinctio eum omnis.
Architecto qui et quia vitae. Deserunt ratione qui omnis qui voluptate accusamus consequatur. Nam velit porro veniam eos ipsa aperiam ipsam non.
Libero laboriosam iste minima ab. Aut ut et perspiciatis nostrum qui soluta. Quasi veniam et dolores veniam.
Doloribus tenetur iure pariatur est. Fugit aliquam nemo explicabo dignissimos neque qui velit. Architecto itaque architecto nemo esse beatae reiciendis. Non deserunt dolorem aut consequatur omnis est sed. Ut illum vel et culpa nulla velit laudantium. Debitis voluptas consequuntur molestias minima pariatur voluptas blanditiis occaecati. Voluptate ea error est blanditiis alias.