Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador
1,023 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52233355]What possible ulterior motives do the Washington Post and Buzzfeed have? And how can they be any worse than Trump's ulterior motives?[/QUOTE]
I'm not the conspiracy theory type, but these news organizations have an agenda to push. That's not necessarily something evil, it's literally as simple as right wing / left wing values- as is the case with Buzzfeed. Their agenda is obviously a pro social justice one. (I'm not using that term derogatorily, even though I believe Buzzfeed is cancer, as is social justice)
Trump aint gonna last a year at this rate. Ya know what I'll tox it, If Trump lasts more than a year as president Ill run 2 miles with a MAGA hat and American Flag Cape
:toxx:
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Toxx clause: if Trump lasts more than a year. Ban me. Escape: must run with Maga hat and American cap and run for 2 miles. Post video in rc." - Kiwi))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=UziXxX;52233322]I think you raise a good point, and I agree with it for the most part. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the source to be named.
But there is a flip side to the coin.
The Washington Post does have a record of publishing verified reporting, and I don't doubt that they did get tips from an anonymous source. However, given the legality of the situation, as well as how they worded their article (especially their headline) it's obvious that this is yet another hit piece on Trump.
The right wing news sources (like Fox news, among others) were notorious for this during the Obama administration. They'd spin articles to make Obama sound awful but the substance of their reporting was somewhat lacking.
While I'm a Trump voter (not so much a supporter, because I'm a constitutional conservative and I don't believe Trump is one) I'll be the first to admit that I do have considerable bias, but I've also been disappointed by Trump's derailment from his campaign promises. Politicians were liars and crooks before Trump took office, and they'll continue to be after Trump leaves.
But to believe the Washington Post and Buzzfeed don't have ulterior motives in their reporting (I believe this goes beyond left/right bias) is an absurd notion. Especially after the Washington Post puts "democracy dies in the darkness" on its website after Trump won the election. (I understand that's more or less a response to Trump literally attacking the media, attempting to discredit them, but we have to remember that most of what he said can be boiled down to rhetoric. It's actions that count.)[/QUOTE]
You've just answered your own criticism on the "democracy dies in the darkness" quote. Trump was calling for a crackdown on journalistic freedom. It's the responsibility of our media to protect the freedom of the press above all. They have to meet that rhetoric with solidarity BEFORE it turns to action, or by then it will be too late.
[QUOTE=Paramud;52233363]It's strange to think that while all this stuff is happening with Trump, all it took for Clinton to leave office was lying about a blowjob.[/QUOTE]
Clinton never left office, he finished his second term on January 20, 2001
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;52233391]Trump aint gonna last a year at this rate. Ya know what I'll tox it, If Trump lasts more than a year as president Ill run 2 miles with a MAGA hat and American Flag Cape
:toxx:[/QUOTE]
:toxx:
[QUOTE=Dolton;52233264]*Checks Fox News*
This, and I am in absolutely no way kidding, is the second line below the headline which is about Clinton.
Literally the "bbbuutt her emaiiiilllss" meme.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/SW9fsdW.png[/IMG]
holy shit, and it edges out Trump's story from the top spot.
God I'm glad the CRTC denied Fox News a broadcast license and told them where to go. Unbelievable.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;52233398]Clinton never left office, he finished his second term on January 20, 2001[/QUOTE]
He's an example of an impeachment that never went all the way to removal from office.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;52233388]I'm not the conspiracy theory type, but these news organizations have an agenda to push. That's not necessarily something evil, it's literally as simple as right wing / left wing values- as is the case with Buzzfeed. Their agenda is obviously a pro social justice one. (I'm not using that term derogatorily, even though I believe Buzzfeed is cancer, as is social justice)[/QUOTE]
Everyone has an agenda to push, so what
It is completely impossible to be unbiased
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52233383]Washington Post has a slight liberal bias, but otherwise has a fairly spotless record of journalistic integrity. They don't post unsubstantiated claims without a heavy disclaimer on the news.[/QUOTE]
They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
The Washington Post has a liberal bias in reporting choices, however they are typically well sourced to credible information. Sometimes they rush stories to be the first to break them, which leads to poor sourcing. This has occurred on a few occasions in 2016. When an error is made the Washington Post responsibly makes corrections.
:thinking:
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52233412]They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
The Washington Post has a liberal bias in reporting choices, however they are typically well sourced to credible information. Sometimes they rush stories to be the first to break them, which leads to poor sourcing. This has occurred on a few occasions in 2016. When an error is made the Washington Post responsibly makes corrections.
:thinking:[/QUOTE]
Acceptance?
Also what words do you think they should use if our president is literally giving away classified information like goddamn candy?
edit: sry 4 hyperbole, he's giving away classified information like classified information, hope u understand.
Disregarding Nesto's shitposting crusade, is there much going in favor of trump so far other than one shoddy announcement that was less than one minute long ?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52233411]Everyone has an agenda to push, so what
It is completely impossible to be unbiased[/QUOTE]
so what????
You're taking something on face value without considering what their motives are
[QUOTE=finbe;52233419]Also what words do you think they should use if our president is literally giving away classified information like goddamn candy?[/QUOTE]
"God-emperor"
"But her emails"
"Liberal bias"
[QUOTE=UziXxX;52233427]so what????
You're taking something on face value without considering what their motives are[/QUOTE]
I think their motives are to inform the public, I don't know what you're on about.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52233408][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/SW9fsdW.png[/IMG]
holy shit, and it edges out Trump's story from the top spot.
God I'm glad the CRTC denied Fox News a broadcast license and told them where to go. Unbelievable.[/QUOTE]
This is why Fox news viewership is less informed than people who don't read the news at all, as confirmed by multiple studies. You want to see dishonest reporting and heavy bias in action? Look no further, nesto. The questions and even featured. Instead, the training story is a smear piece on Clinton, and the only response to this massive news is an all capital headline in the bottom left reading, "IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!"
[QUOTE=UziXxX;52233427]so what????
You're taking something on face value without considering what their motives are[/QUOTE]
Several users already touched upon this on earlier pages; news outlets like WaPo, NYT, etc strive to have (and maintain) a credible reputation when it comes to releasing stories like this. They wouldn't often do so lightly without making sure there was a semblance of truth to these allegations.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52233432]I think their motives are to inform the public, I don't know what you're on about.[/QUOTE]
Their motives are to generate ad revenue by increasing web traffic, as well as sell news paper subscriptions (if those even still exist)
[QUOTE=UziXxX;52233427]so what????
You're taking something on face value without considering what their motives are[/QUOTE]
It's truly odd how Trump decided to shun US media and only meet with Russians even during an investigation about russian ties in which he fired the director of the FBI and has had a few members of his administration and campaign involved with Russia; now this story breaks out...
What is Trump's motive is truly something people should be grabbing for.
[QUOTE=finbe;52233419]Acceptance?
Also what words do you think they should use if our president is literally giving away classified information like goddamn candy?
edit: sry 4 hyperbole, he's giving away classified information like classified information, hope u understand.[/QUOTE]
According to people present in the meeting, he wasn't.
So whats the issue.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;52233443]Their motives are to generate ad revenue by increasing web traffic, as well as sell news paper subscriptions (if those even still exist)[/QUOTE]
the bbc too mate?
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52233445]According to people present in the meeting, he wasn't.
So whats the issue.[/QUOTE]
rip back to denial
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52233357]If you read the reuters, BBC, and NYTimes articles they just parrot what Wapo is saying without adding anything to it. They don't corroborate anything, they don't talk to their own sources. Them reporting on it doesn't validate it and you'd be stupid not to report on the days hottest story(whether its factual or not).[/QUOTE]
No, actually the NYT independently confirmed it, along with Reuters and Buzzfeed. Quit spreading bullshit.
[editline]16th May 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52233439]This is why Fox news viewership is less informed than people who don't read the news at all, as confirmed by multiple studies. You want to see dishonest reporting and heavy bias in action? Look no further, nesto. The questions and even featured. Instead, the training story is a smear piece on Clinton, and the only response to this massive news is an all capital headline in the bottom left reading, "IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!"[/QUOTE]
And a reminder to people who claim "both sides are they same they both do it!!"
The New York times broke the story on Clinton's emails. If you honestly believe the NYT/WaPo are the "left-wing" equivalents of Fox then you are just willfully ignorant.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52233445]According to people present in the meeting, he wasn't.
So whats the issue.[/QUOTE]
...like Rex Tillerson, who had to recuse himself beforehand and has strong interests in helping Russia, such as diverting attention away from stories such as these?
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52233445]According to people present in the meeting, he wasn't.
So whats the issue.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=UziXxX;52233427]
You're taking something on face value without considering what their motives are[/QUOTE]
Works both ways I guess.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;52233398]Clinton never left office, he finished his second term on January 20, 2001[/QUOTE]
Wow, I'm an idiot. At any rate, the impeachment was essentially over him lying about a blowjob. Meanwhile, Trump is pulling serious shit like this on a daily basis now.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52233445]According to people present in the meeting, he wasn't.
So whats the issue.[/QUOTE]
No, according to people in the meeting he didn't share sources or methods. Which the original story never claimed. For the love of god stop being so fucking obtuse and quit spreading disinformation.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52233445]According to people present in the meeting, he wasn't.
So whats the issue.[/QUOTE]
"No media is trustworthy if they give incriminating reports on Trump but whatever Trump and his pals say is definitely true despite being caught lying, manipulating and blackmailing before"
That's an issue, you should get it sorted out
Also yeah I'm sure WaPo and Reuters and NYT are risking their entire reputations on something they know is false just to get a petty blow in on Trump.
What are Republicans even doing anymore. They didn't want this guy as their candidate and they're staring down mid-term elections but they keep lining up to sign their name on the dumpster fire.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
