WowBB Forums Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > General Discussion > Fake News Media vs. Trump

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Fake News Media vs. Trump  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Tue Feb 21st, 2017 10:06 am
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9599
Status: 
Offline
Who do you believe? 

Both Establishment News Companies and Trump's Alternative Facts are full of horseshit?
Who wins this battle? 

I can really see this subject impacting and endangering the internal core of our society. People on either side can just downplay or deny atrocities now and in the future.  This has never been challenged in my lifetime and I think in the history of this country.  Maybe I am wrong and it has occurred, but. I do not think on this scale. 

We have new crazy stuff presented almost daily from both sides. 

I do not see any way that this can end in a positive manner.

Last edited on Tue Feb 21st, 2017 10:40 am by Papa Voo



____________________
“Anybody notice that Papa Voo can make all these posts, despite the fact he hasn't been logged in all night? #S&W (Scumbag Liars & Worthless Trash)“

-(Comedian/Troll Wanna Be) Heenan Fan-
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Feb 21st, 2017 10:31 am
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Benlen



Joined: Sun Oct 21st, 2007
Location: Milpitas, California USA
Posts: 13131
Status: 
Offline
There is no bigger bullshitter than Trump. Every day it's something else with this guy.



____________________
Only thing harder than achieving excellence is maintaining it.
Dream Well. It may come true.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Feb 21st, 2017 01:56 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Qaenos

 

Joined: Tue Jan 8th, 2008
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 1104
Status: 
Offline
I honestly can't think of a hard, concrete example of the mainstream news (e.g. CNN) out-and-out lying about something. In other words, saying something happened that didn't happen, or vice-versa. I'm sure they have at some point, but it's not a common occurrance. However, they definetely pick-and-choose what they cover, and delibrately try to pursuade people towards the left by not honestly reporting the whole story.

I do feel they are dishonest, because of their bias and they way they pretend not to be.  However, they are very careful not to lie, so that they can maintain some credibility.

Last edited on Tue Feb 21st, 2017 01:57 pm by Qaenos

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Feb 21st, 2017 04:21 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
retroken



Joined: Tue Jan 8th, 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 1905
Status: 
Offline
I have worked in the newspaper industry for 20+ years and if you think the New York Times is fake news there is nothing more to say. Every newspaper in the country slants left or right depending on local politics and they always have.
But simply put, the NYT is the paper of record and the existing chronicle of history for mankind. Period.
End of discussion. Free Press = the Truth.

Last edited on Tue Feb 21st, 2017 04:22 pm by retroken

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Feb 21st, 2017 05:41 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
dogfacedgremlin34
Will Kick Your Ass At Fantasy Football


Joined: Fri Feb 8th, 2008
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 10016
Status: 
Offline
retroken wrote: I have worked in the newspaper industry for 20+ years and if you think the New York Times is fake news there is nothing more to say. Every newspaper in the country slants left or right depending on local politics and they always have.
But simply put, the NYT is the paper of record and the existing chronicle of history for mankind. Period.
End of discussion. Free Press = the Truth.

It's astounding to me that such a large swath of Americans would choose to take the word of a single individual who clearly has psychological issues too numerous to list over that of any consistently trusted institution, especially when you consider his talking points and "evidence" come directly from the primary "fake news" source that is Breitbart.

Every time I want to believe that millions and millions of Americans can't be as stupid and gullible and ignorant as I pessimistically believe they are, I get proven wrong.  By a large degree, critical thinking is dead in America.

Last edited on Tue Feb 21st, 2017 05:47 pm by dogfacedgremlin34



____________________
"I'm putting your worthless fucking ass on ignore so I don't have to read anymore of your pompous arrogant New York big shot bullshit. Good fucking riddance, fuckhead."-Angelic Assassin to rossi
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Feb 21st, 2017 06:54 pm
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
broke



Joined: Tue Jan 22nd, 2008
Location: Bolton, ON
Posts: 3140
Status: 
Offline
People aren't looking for facts. They want something that enforces their own beliefs, no matter how nutty they are.



____________________
Comic Saaaaaannnsss
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Feb 21st, 2017 07:31 pm
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
Principal_Raditch



Joined: Mon Feb 18th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 6750
Status: 
Online
I really don't see Trump presenting facts, mostly rhetoric and talking in circles.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Feb 21st, 2017 07:50 pm
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 48729
Status: 
Offline
"Fake news" was a liberal term that Trump took and used against them brilliantly.  He just now says it about everything and it's a beautiful troll.  He's just so much better at life than liberals are.  It's a shame he's so dangerous.  It's also a shame that the joke is going so far without liberals having the slightest clue what's going on yet.  The guy's going to wind up being re-elected too if they don't wake up soon.   

Last edited on Tue Feb 21st, 2017 07:52 pm by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Feb 21st, 2017 08:27 pm
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9599
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: "Fake news" was a liberal term that Trump took and used against them brilliantly.  He just now says it about everything and it's a beautiful troll.  He's just so much better at life than liberals are.  It's a shame he's so dangerous.  It's also a shame that the joke is going so far without liberals having the slightest clue what's going on yet.  The guy's going to wind up being re-elected too if they don't wake up soon.   

So what would be your plan to resolve this when obviously he could say the moon is made of green cheese and his supporters would argue that he is right until their death.  

I also think this whole thing is not a Trump "thing", I am more apt to believe this may be a Bannon tactic, because there are various people within his administration that are just throwing things out there.  

Last edited on Tue Feb 21st, 2017 08:28 pm by Papa Voo



____________________
“Anybody notice that Papa Voo can make all these posts, despite the fact he hasn't been logged in all night? #S&W (Scumbag Liars & Worthless Trash)“

-(Comedian/Troll Wanna Be) Heenan Fan-
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Feb 21st, 2017 08:37 pm
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 48729
Status: 
Offline
Papa Voo wrote: srossi wrote: "Fake news" was a liberal term that Trump took and used against them brilliantly.  He just now says it about everything and it's a beautiful troll.  He's just so much better at life than liberals are.  It's a shame he's so dangerous.  It's also a shame that the joke is going so far without liberals having the slightest clue what's going on yet.  The guy's going to wind up being re-elected too if they don't wake up soon.   

So what would be your plan to resolve this when obviously he could say the moon is made of green cheese and his supporters would argue that he is right until their death.  

I also think this whole thing is not a Trump "thing", I am more apt to believe this may be a Bannon tactic, because there are various people within his administration that are just throwing things out there.  

Well that's the million-dollar question.  I think the most important thing is to stop harping on every insignificant and petty thing he says and focus on the big issues.  Otherwise you're overloading people with news, most of it silly, and that's turning people off or desensitizing them.  The first 2 weeks of Trump's presidency was defined by the most retarded argument ever over crowd attendance at his inauguration.  Who the fuck cares?!  The media fell right into that trap.  Trump is the master at getting you to be as petty as him and as you argue over nonsense, he's doing something much more significant. 



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Feb 21st, 2017 09:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
11th Post
Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9599
Status: 
Offline
You are right on that subject, and they went right back to the electoral vote after this most recent press conference.



____________________
“Anybody notice that Papa Voo can make all these posts, despite the fact he hasn't been logged in all night? #S&W (Scumbag Liars & Worthless Trash)“

-(Comedian/Troll Wanna Be) Heenan Fan-
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Feb 21st, 2017 09:26 pm
  PM Quote Reply
12th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 48729
Status: 
Offline
Former Libertarian VP candidate Larry Sharpe makes this prediction, which I have to agree with:

OK, one month into his presidency and I'm going to make my Trump prediction. When I look into my crystal ball, I see that he will not run in 2020. In the coming years he will prove to be just like the rest and be relatively ineffective in creating any real change. He will become frustrated and then disengaged. His advisors and team will take on more and more day-to-day control. Then, he will either step down in year 3 or 4, to give Pence some time to gain gravitas for his run, or he will simply not seek re-election like Lyndon Johnson. He will blame everything but himself: the system, cowardly Republicans, the media, etc... He may even attack us (the American people) as not ready for or worthy of him. So, as long as Facebook is still around in 2020, we'll see if I was right. I kinda hope that I'm wrong. EDIT: I kinda hope I'm wrong because I would rather him not fail and become a real change maker. I just don't see it now.



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Feb 21st, 2017 11:04 pm
  PM Quote Reply
13th Post
DaNkinator



Joined: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 6116
Status: 
Offline
He won't be able to call it fake news for long...

Article in Newsweek -

Call it what you will: Flynnghazi. Russiagate. The Crackpot Dome scandal. No matter the sobriquet attached to the inappropriate discussions between the Russian ambassador and Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security advisor, the growing cancer from this case is not going away.

Perhaps the Russia scandal seemed like it had disappeared amid the antics of the past week, from Trump’s rambling, 77-minute press conference, his Saturday rally—where he surprised Sweden with news of some imaginary immigrant disaster the previous night—or his declaration that the news media was the enemy of the American people.

But even if Trump tries to sweep the Flynn affair aside with his now-cliché proclamation that everything he dislikes is “fake news,” enough evidence already exists to demonstrate that this scandal could consume the administration for months to come. Little doubt, Trump’s words at his press conference about Flynn’s Russia contacts—“I would have directed him to do it if I thought he wasn’t doing it’’—will likely join the ranks of ill-advised presidential scandal comments along the lines of “I did not have sexual relations with that woman Lewinsky,’’ and “I am not a crook.”

There are multiple issues at play in this matter, but the basic story is this: The United States imposed sanctions on Russia following its 2014 military incursion into Ukraine. Additional limited sanctions were put in place last year in reaction to Russia’s use of hacking and propaganda campaigns to influence the American election. In a December 30 conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Flynn discussed the sanctions, raising questions of whether he had said anything to undermine the policies of then-still-in-office President Barack Obama. On January 12, The Washington Post reported that the discussions between Flynn and Kislyak had taken place. That day, Flynn denied to White House spokesman Sean Spicer that he had mentioned sanctions. Flynn also deceived Vice President Michael Pence, assuring him that they had only discussed logistics for phone calls with Trump; Pence then repeated that falsehood publicly on January 16.

All very embarrassing. But what has happened since makes clear this is more than just an issue of White House bumbling. The magnitude of the growing scandal, even without specific details of Flynn’s words to the Russian ambassador, require an understanding of the rules involving surveillance by the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Despite the fears of the uninformed, America’s surveillance teams do not read emails and listen in on phone calls haphazardly. There are very specific requirements that already signal that Flynn’s communications with Kislyak, along with any other intercepted information transmitted to representatives of the Kremlin, raise serious issues.

The first rule to understand involves the term of art, “an American person.” Before 9/11, the rules were quite strict: No one could be surveilled in the United States without a warrant issued by a national security court. That meant, if the NSA had detected Osama bin Laden speaking on a cell phone as he crossed a bridge from Canada to Buffalo, they would have to shut down their surveillance the second he reached the American side. A corporation based in the United States was also considered “an American person,” meaning any information about it had to be excised from files and memos. That meant, literally, if the NSA intercepted a conversation overseas where one terrorist told another that he would be flying to the United States on Delta, the information distributed throughout the intelligence community could include the date and the scheduled departure or arrival time, but not the name of the airline.

That system went through a huge overhaul in the aftermath of the Al-Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001. And some of the rules were revised again after Edward Snowden, a former contractor with the NSA, publicly revealed some of the details about the surveillance system. Even still, America is far from being out of the spy business, and for someone like Flynn to get swept up in the surveillance and analysis system requires that the counterintelligence experts in government clear some very high hurdles.

The first rule comes from Executive Order 12333, signed by former President Ronald Reagan in 1981, which gives the FBI and the NSA the authority to use the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as the basis for actively monitoring communications between foreign officials inside the United States, including ambassadors like Kislyak. In fact, the most surprising element of this entire scandal is that, barring absolute incompetence, Flynn must have known—and Kislyak certainly knew—that their conversations would probably be recorded.

This is not a matter of some simple “listen to it and analyze” process. The amount of data coming into the NSA alone on a daily basis is almost beyond human comprehension. The agency is something of a data factory, chopping, slicing and dicing all information coming in following a series of complex procedures. A program called Xkeyscore processes all intercepted signals before they then move on to another area that deals with particular specialized issues.

The rules for handling an intercept of a conversation between an official of the American government and the target of surveillance differ in some substantial ways from those used for average citizens. The recording would be deemed “raw FISA-acquired material,’’ some of the NSA’s most highly classified information. Then that recording or a transcript of it would be read into one of the four surveillance programs codenamed RAGTIME. There are RAGTIME-A, -B, -C, and -P. Most likely, according to one former government official with ties to the intelligence community, the conversation would have been analyzed through RAGTIME-B, which relates to communications from a foreign territory into the United States (the Russian embassy is considered sovereign land of that country). The conversation could not have fallen under RAGTIME-A, because that involves only foreign-to-foreign communications. RAGTIME-C deals with anti-proliferation matters and RAGTIME-P is for counterterrorism. (This is the infamous warrantless wiretapping program, with “P” standing for the post-9/11 law, the Patriot Act.)

Assuming the Flynn recording involved RAGTIME-B, because of his position as a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and being the incoming president’s national security advisor, the intercepted material would be immediately analyzed. If Flynn—as the White House first stated when the news of his contacts with Kislyak became public—had been engaged in pleasantries or planning meeting times for the Russians with Trump, the records of Flynn’s side of the conversation would no longer exist. Flynn would have been deemed an American person, and the intercepted recordings and transcripts would be “minimized”—the word used in the surveillance world for when portions or all of an intercepted communication is destroyed. In other words, if the conversation was no more than “How are you Ambassador Kislyak,” or “Let’s set up a meeting for you and a Russian delegation with the president-elect,” Flynn’s words would no longer exist in any American file.

But that’s not what happened. Instead, something in the recording led the first-level analysts from RAGTIME to follow the next leg of the procedure and take the intercept to the head of the FBI’s National Security Division for another review. Again, if a conclusion was reached that there was nothing in the call to raise concerns, the reviews would have stopped there and the data would have been minimized. But the division head instead decided that the intercepted conversation merited bringing the raw transcript to James Comey, the director of the FBI, and his deputy. (At the time, this would have been Mark F. Giuliano, a veteran of the bureau. Giuliano has since retired and, as of this month, was replaced by Andrew G. McCabe, a former lawyer in private practice who joined the federal law enforcement agency in 1996.) The director and his deputy were then the final arbiters of whether the intercepted communications merited further investigation. And they decided it did.

There were three communications intercepted, the first on December 18. One of them was a text message, the other two were phone calls. That raw FISA-acquired material was reviewed by analysts read into RAGTIME, who found it concerning. They took it to the head of the National Security Division, who found it concerning. That led to the transcript being delivered to the director and deputy director of the FBI. And they found it concerning—in fact, concerning enough that they opened an investigation and have already interviewed Flynn.

The conversation of greatest importance took place on December 30. That was the day after the Obama administration took action against Russia for interfering with the American election with cyberattacks, expelling 35 suspected spies and imposing sanctions on two of that country’s intelligence agencies involved in hacking. It was in Flynn’s conversation the following day that he discussed the issue of American sanctions on Russia, which he later denied having done to Vice President Pence.

Two more events at that time raise the greatest numbers of questions. Espionage has always been a tit-for-tat game. America expels Russian spies, Russia retaliates by expelling American spies and vice-versa. Both sides already know the identities of plenty of spies working alongside the diplomats, so it is hardly difficult to throw them out as needed. But this time, Russia did…nothing. President Vladimir Putin announced the same day as the Flynn call that his country would take no action in retaliation to the expulsion. Then, almost immediately afterward, Trump sent out an almost unprecedented message, tweeting at 1:41 p.m. what amounted to a congratulations to the leader of a foreign aggressor nation for essentially blowing off the American president. “Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very smart!” Trump tweeted.

The failure by Putin to act stunned the counterintelligence experts in the government. Trump’s rah-rah cheers for this almost unprecedented move were, at best, unseemly and, at worst, a sign that the president-elect was sending messages to Putin that undermined ongoing American policy. The search for information about how this bizarre situation unfolded led to the Flynn recording being discovered, analyzed and brought up the chain of command in the FBI. And on January 12, when Spicer repeated Flynn’s statements, followed by Pence’s assurances on January 16—four days before the inauguration—the FBI knew that someone with the incoming administration was lying. FBI Director Comey decided to wait before contacting the Trump team until after the swearing-in. Finally, a few days after the inauguration, FBI agents interviewed Flynn. Shortly afterward, the acting attorney general, Sally Yates, informed the new White House counsel, Don McGahn, that they had recordings that showed Flynn’s accounts of what he had discussed were not true. Eleven days passed before anyone told the vice president that he had been deceived into making false public statements.

Trump’s tweet praising the Russian president in the middle of all of this subterfuge is troubling enough, but there is one fact that has gone relatively unmentioned: Trump either knows exactly what Flynn said, or he is incompetent. He has the full authority to ask for the raw FISA-acquired material. He could read the transcripts, listen to the recording himself, or have an intelligence analyst sit down with him and go over the conversation in detail. But Trump has never indicated he knows what Flynn said. Worse, in the 77-minute press conference, no reporter asked him that simple yes-or-no question, “Have you read the Flynn transcript or listened to the recording?” So at this point, Trump either knows the same information that has alarmed so many levels of the national counterintelligence experts in government and is unconcerned, or he has failed to ask for details while proclaiming he would have told Flynn to do exactly as the former national security advisor had done. Or the worst option—Trump knew ahead of time what Flynn was planning to do, and the “attaboy!” tweet to Putin was part of it.

So, what did the president know and when did he know it? As previously reported in Newsweek, some of America’s allies, including one foreign intelligence service that also intercepted at least one of Flynn’s communications with the Russians, are trying to figure that out. Meanwhile, the FBI is hard at work investigating the mess of Russia, hacking, Flynn and whoever else gets dragged into this mess.

The investigation apparently has already dug up a lot of information. After lots of foot-dragging by Republicans in Congress who were not eager to investigate Russia’s influence and dalliances with the Trump team, Comey sat down with members of the Senate Intelligence Committee to brief them on what he knew. The meeting lasted for close to three hours. When the senators emerged, there was no more shrugging of shoulders about the Russia scandals. Senator Marco Rubio tweeted out, “I am now very confident Senate Intel Comm I serve on will conduct thorough bipartisan investigation of interference and influence.” Letters from members of Congress were sent to the White House demanding that no documents related to contacts with Russia be destroyed. No one is screaming “Fake news!” anymore when it comes to the Russia story. Except, of course, President Trump.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Feb 21st, 2017 11:37 pm
  PM Quote Reply
14th Post
Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9599
Status: 
Offline
Here is my thing about this Russia issue or any other issue with Trump.

I think you would need a video/audio feed in bright HD of him doing some wrongdoing before any of his supporters would even think about believing it.

At the same time, I do not trust our govt. in ramping up charges against Trump or anybody else that is not following the "arranged" plans on global events. (I still think this was a factor with Iraq....just my opinion)

This can get ugly real quick if they would try to have hearings to impeach Trump. You know he is going to dismiss any action as phony charges by the corrupt cronies in the Intelligence field and the media.



____________________
“Anybody notice that Papa Voo can make all these posts, despite the fact he hasn't been logged in all night? #S&W (Scumbag Liars & Worthless Trash)“

-(Comedian/Troll Wanna Be) Heenan Fan-
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Feb 22nd, 2017 01:00 am
  PM Quote Reply
15th Post
freebirdsforever2001
Fantasia is running wild!


Joined: Tue Jul 8th, 2008
Location: Pittsgrove, New Jersey USA
Posts: 20758
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: Former Libertarian VP candidate Larry Sharpe makes this prediction, which I have to agree with:

OK, one month into his presidency and I'm going to make my Trump prediction. When I look into my crystal ball, I see that he will not run in 2020. In the coming years he will prove to be just like the rest and be relatively ineffective in creating any real change. He will become frustrated and then disengaged. His advisors and team will take on more and more day-to-day control. Then, he will either step down in year 3 or 4, to give Pence some time to gain gravitas for his run, or he will simply not seek re-election like Lyndon Johnson. He will blame everything but himself: the system, cowardly Republicans, the media, etc... He may even attack us (the American people) as not ready for or worthy of him. So, as long as Facebook is still around in 2020, we'll see if I was right. I kinda hope that I'm wrong. EDIT: I kinda hope I'm wrong because I would rather him not fail and become a real change maker. I just don't see it now.

I think Trump will get impeached whether if the Republicans are in charge and definitely if the Democrats get back in control of the Senate & House during the 2018 elections.



____________________

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 11:39 am Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page    
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > General Discussion > Fake News Media vs. Trump Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems