Donald Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IDF-8khS3w

BTFO level: not appropriate.

(30 sec video)

"

Xavderion wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IDF-8khS3w

BTFO level: not appropriate.

(30 sec video)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4110300/Trump-calls-Buzzfeed-failing-pile-garbage-refuses-call-CNN-fake-news-reporter-publishing-dirty-dossier-press-conference.html

For those who prefer the written word.

So just to be perfectly crystal clear here:

Pizzagate is real

Watersportsgate is not

...that about right?

"

Antnee wrote:

So just to be perfectly crystal clear here:

Pizzagate is real

Watersportsgate is not

...that about right?

As I've said earlier, it's very difficult to tell exactly what the code language in the Podesta emails refers to. I am beginning to be more inclined to think it references simple recreational drug use than a pedophilia ring.

But more real, certainly.

"

Antnee wrote:

So just to be perfectly crystal clear here:

Pizzagate is real

Watersportsgate is not

...that about right?

theyre both fake, obviously

and should be easily classified as fake by anyone with a half-functioning brain and some time to do some research, someone whos been around on internet and is not a gullible joe.

this is the problem with witch hunting 'fake news' tho- Ive said it before, and I'll say it again. 'fake news' has been around for dozens of years on the internet. its full of it. separating the wheat from chaff should be done by the reader. instead, just like with gaming nowadays, people want to be readers and dont want to do basic check of information/facts. people trust shit like wikipedia knowing well enough it can be edited easily, and yet they dont go to actual sources cited in wikipedia. because 'muh time'. well if you dont think you should spend some time researching shit on a medium where the approach since inception was "assume its fake/wrong, do your checking", then you deserve it

witch hunting 'fake news' will only give carte blanche to parties/institutions/politicians to suppress sources they don't like or have incentive to politically silence and label them as fake news at will.

instead of witch hunting fake news, we should do what we always did - natural selection. dont safeguard people on the internet. if they want to believe some agenda on the internet spoken by random people- they can do so. just like they can believe some agenda by random people on the street.

"

Antnee wrote:

So just to be perfectly crystal clear here:

Pizzagate is real

Watersportsgate is not

...that about right?

It is the opposite of right. Did CNN, and the MSM treat Pizzagate as if it were real? Did they attribute it to intelligence agencies?

Conversely, how many potentially verifiable "facts" does Yellow Snowflakegate have? While Pizzagate had a lot of suggestive facts, with no proof, they at least had numerous items listed that others could verify or dispute.

Then we have Wikileaks - a source that has not yet been proven to have incorrect facts stating that the Yellow Snowflakegate doesn't even resemble an intelligence report.

Still, this is just my drive by opinion based on the very limited info so far, and like your opinion neither is proof in a court of law.

There may be an eventual legal determination made...

Yesterday's rumours suggest that the originator of the information has "lawyered up" to prove that he indeed submitted the "intelligence report" to Rick Wilson, and potentially make Buzzfeed (and maybe others)liable and subject to defamation as Gawker was. I haven't seen anything definitive yet, other than the purported originator deleting their twitter account.

Lastly there are a lot of "blanked" sections of the supposed intelligence report, **if** they contain what has been posted on /pol (such as Trump dressing in children's pajamas and requesting Japanimation presents) - then it will be clear that the media was trolled.

It wouldn't be /pol's first successful mass trolling either:





http://www.gayinthe80s.com/2014/04/1980s-gay-scene-signalling-sexual-tastes/

"

Antnee wrote:

So just to be perfectly crystal clear here:

Pizzagate is real

Watersportsgate is not

...that about right?

Let me put it this way, CNN is on the same level as the media outlets which reported about Pizzagate as if it was real. Let that sink in lol.

I really hope Trump goes full Hulk Hogan on Buzzfeed. That would be epic.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Let me put it this way, CNN is on the same level as the media outlets which reported about Pizzagate as if it was real. Let that sink in lol.

I dont see why its news (heh) anyway

any 'news' agency that has one-sided agenda is guilty of 'fake news'.

once the concept of 'news' deviated from 'reporting x y and z in as objective and detached manner possible' and devolved into 'take a piece of news and put a spin on it and watch people circlejerk to views we share' the credibility of such agencies goes out of the window

whether its cnn, fox news, RT, or whatever, its the same shit. people who think one-sided agenda reporting is reputable because it aligns with their views, are just naive or blind. or both.

"

grepman wrote:

once the concept of 'news' deviated from 'reporting x y and z in as objective and detached manner possible' and devolved into 'take a piece of news and put a spin on it..

The media's job should be to report plain boring facts. But since that wouldn't sell very well, they are now mostly devoted to interpreting facts through a political filter. If there is a lack of facts that would support certain agaenda, then you just make up stuff.

Title: Did Trump piss on some prostitutes? (question mark = we dont have a clue, but will still report it)

Citing imaginary "unnamed officials" and "sources talking under condition of anonymity" is another wildly used tactic to sell fake news. It's through "unnamed high-ranking officials", that the US media-industrial complex sold all the wars in the past 16 years to the public. Zero accountability.

Speculation and discussion was and will always be a part of journalism. But it´s a huge difference between asking questions and making assertions.

Many of you have a double standard here. I´m wondering if you´re really not aware of this. It makes the impression of taking everyone for an idiot with dummy arguments.

Trump seems to be obsessed with defending himself (by attacking others). Not a good starting position.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/01/trump-meet-bond-james-bond-russia-love-170111130000939.html

( /opinion/ )