America under President Trump

The_Squid · January 12, 2017

16 minutes ago, blueblood said:

And there's no CIA reports of trump getting pissed on. Both fake. Hell it was fake when "Mike cohen" who was supposed to be in Prague was in California.

So CNN said Trump was pissed on.... cite please.

BubberMiley · January 12, 2017

18 minutes ago, blueblood said:

And there's no CIA reports of trump getting pissed on. Both fake. Hell it was fake when "Mike cohen" who was supposed to be in Prague was in California.

Actually there were no reports of Trump getting pissed on. I believe the report was that they peed on a bed. Trump brought up the idea of him getting pissed on himself when he said he was a germophobe, which wouldn't have anything to do with a bed getting wet.

blueblood · January 12, 2017

8 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

No, how about the Podesta emails. Donald was quoting from one within minutes of it being reported (without verification) in the Russian press. The press then picked up on them and reported on their contents without knowing whether the emails had been doctored by the Russian agents who released them. You accepted all this information as fact, and now want to whine about CNN reporting information that is in the public domain while emphasizing it hasn't been verified. Not only is it hypocritical, but there isn't even any cognitive dissonance while you do it, which suggests why you're a Trump supporter.

The problem is was John podesta saying they were his emails. Podesta was complaining that he got hacked and that they were out. Once again we don't know if the Russians hacked podestas email or not, but we do know the Russians have hacked other places. You wanted to talk about the Hillary emails being fake which they weren't as the FBI subpoenaed them then moved the goal posts to podesta, which podesta himself says he was hacked. CNN was reporting on a dossier with as much credibility as pizza gate. I would say your being hypocritical by dismissing the Hillary emails while accepting the possible 4chan troll dossier as fact.

as for being a trump supporter, he is a boor no doubt about it and his stance on free trade isn't the one to take as it puts the brakes on global wealth creation which is bad. I do enjoy his low tax plan, cuts to regulations, and the fact that he is giving leftists hissy fits.

blueblood · January 12, 2017

14 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

The CIA calls those reports "credible."

not the first time the CIA was wrong

blueblood · January 12, 2017

8 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

So CNN said Trump was pissed on.... cite please.

CNN gave credibility to the buzzfeed story. A google search shows why they got in hot water and New York Times didntdidn't

blueblood · January 12, 2017

7 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Actually there were no reports of Trump getting pissed on. I believe the report was that they peed on a bed. Trump brought up the idea of him getting pissed on himself when he said he was a germophobe, which wouldn't have anything to do with a bed getting wet.

Now we are splitting hairs. Either way it's an outlandish story of piss being involved somehow that has been debunked.

The_Squid · January 12, 2017

Just now, blueblood said:

CNN gave credibility to the buzzfeed story. A google search shows why they got in hot water and New York Times didntdidn't

so no cite.... you were "exaggerating" (some might say "lying"... but not me...) about what CNN reported...

BubberMiley · January 12, 2017

4 minutes ago, blueblood said:

The problem is was John podesta saying they were his emails. Podesta was complaining that he got hacked and that they were out. Once again we don't know if the Russians hacked podestas email or not, but we do know the Russians have hacked other places. You wanted to talk about the Hillary emails being fake which they weren't as the FBI subpoenaed them then moved the goal posts to podesta, which podesta himself says he was hacked. CNN was reporting on a dossier with as much credibility as pizza gate. I would say your being hypocritical by dismissing the Hillary emails while accepting the possible 4chan troll dossier as fact.

as for being a trump supporter, he is a boor no doubt about it and his stance on free trade isn't the one to take as it puts the brakes on global wealth creation which is bad. I do enjoy his low tax plan, cuts to regulations, and the fact that he is giving leftists hissy fits.

Podesta didn't verify whether the contents of the emails had been tampered with. You accepted that the contents were true even though there was no verification. You also didn't complain about the press reporting on them without verification.

Even though Trump has admitted it was Russia already, why does it matter to you if it was Russia or not?

I didn't dismiss the Hillary emails, so I guess I'm not a hypocrite like you are.

BubberMiley · January 12, 2017

1 minute ago, blueblood said:

Now we are splitting hairs. Either way it's an outlandish story of piss being involved somehow that has been debunked.

Not debunked at all. Probably true, in fact. And there's more....

?Impact · January 12, 2017

Putting out unverified documents is not something the media should do, and BuzzFeed did it this once and clearly stated that it was unverified. Alex Jones on the other hand does this dozens of times daily, and then goes on to build narratives around it as though it were verified. Since Donald Trump praises Alex Jones "Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down", he has absolutely nothing to complain about here.

blueblood · January 12, 2017

2 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Podesta didn't verify whether the contents of the emails had been tampered with. You accepted that the contents were true even though there was no verification. You also didn't complain about the press reporting on them without verification.

Even though Trump has admitted it was Russia already, why does it matter to you if it was Russia or not?

I didn't dismiss the Hillary emails, so I guess I'm not a hypocrite like you are.

All kinds of press went with the podesta story and he said he was hacked. The New York Times didn't run with the dossier file story, there's a difference. Not only that with podesta saying the emails were hacked and the hacked version was released the public saw through the media what was out there. Not my problem that the dems didn't protect their servers better. Not only that trump was able to debunk the story as per the Mike cohen being in Prague. Why did all the media go with podestas emails and not all of them go with the dossier contents, hmmm.

Once again trump says Russia has been participating in hacking in general and nobody knows who hacked podestas computer except for Assange. I put more stock in the subpoenaed emails from Hillary as that was the greater outrage and should have been.

now for everyone's viewing pleasure!

blueblood · January 12, 2017

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

Putting out unverified documents is not something the media should do, and BuzzFeed did it this once and clearly stated that it was unverified. Alex Jones on the other hand does this dozens of times daily, and then goes on to build narratives around it as though it were verified. Since Donald Trump praises Alex Jones "Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down", he has absolutely nothing to complain about here.

And CNN tried making it credible by giving it legs when the nytimes didn't and got their knuckles rapped.

BubberMiley · January 12, 2017

1 minute ago, blueblood said:

Why did all the media go with podestas emails and not all of them go with the dossier contents, hmmm.

Because you would have screamed bloody murder if the MSM failed to report unverified information that was out there against Hillary, just as you scream bloody murder if they only report on the existence of unverified information against Trump. The crying babies always get what they want.

BubberMiley · January 12, 2017

3 minutes ago, blueblood said:

And CNN tried making it credible by giving it legs when the nytimes didn't and got their knuckles rapped.

What do you mean? What are talking about? How did they "give it legs"?

blueblood · January 12, 2017

3 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Because you would have screamed bloody murder if the MSM failed to report unverified information that was out there against Hillary, just as you scream bloody murder if they only report on the existence of unverified information against Trump. The crying babies always get what they want.

As explained earlier, podesta verified he was hacked. My guess from a disgruntled sanders supporter. However the media still ran with it yet put the brakes on the dossier story. Last I checked there was only one media outlet in bed with the GOP and others who are not...

blueblood · January 12, 2017

6 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

What do you mean? What are talking about? How did they "give it legs"?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html

maybe doing that when other media outlets didn't do that when the "dossier" was floating around for months.

BubberMiley · January 12, 2017

2 minutes ago, blueblood said:

As explained earlier, podesta verified he was hacked. My guess from a disgruntled sanders supporter. However the media still ran with it yet put the brakes on the dossier story. Last I checked there was only one media outlet in bed with the GOP and others who are not...

But, again, he didn't verify the contents. Whoever hacked him could have added incriminating material and then released it. Nobody knew whether what they were reporting was true or not. You didn't even think to question whether it was true after the MSM reported it.

BubberMiley · January 12, 2017

1 minute ago, blueblood said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html

maybe doing that when other media outlets didn't do that when the "dossier" was floating around for months.

Do what? Report on the allegations? Everyone did.

blueblood · January 12, 2017

Just now, BubberMiley said:

But, again, he didn't verify the contents. Whoever hacked him could have added incriminating material and then released it. Nobody knew whether what they were reporting was true or not. You didn't even think to question whether it was true after the MSM reported it.

Except the msm put out the hacked emails with podesta saying he was hacked, we don't know if things were added or stay the same, however the emails were put out with podestas commentary. That's not my problem that the podesta email story has more believablity as there is context shown vs the outlandish pissing dossier file which trump flatly denied.

?Impact · January 12, 2017

14 minutes ago, blueblood said:

And CNN tried making it credible by giving it legs when the nytimes didn't and got their knuckles rapped.

Actually it was quite the opposite. CNN reported about inaccuracies in the document, making it less credible. Instead of being rude to CNN at the press conference, Trump should have thanked them.

blueblood · January 12, 2017

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Actually it was quite the opposite. CNN reported about inaccuracies in the document, making it less credible. Instead of being rude to CNN at the press conference, Trump should have thanked them.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cmo-today-cnn-and-buzzfeeds-russia-reports-spark-media-debate-1484138446

cnn blew it up and other such as the nytimes didn't. The CNN guy was also rude as per the video.

BubberMiley · January 12, 2017

Just now, blueblood said:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cmo-today-cnn-and-buzzfeeds-russia-reports-spark-media-debate-1484138446

cnn blew it up and other such as the nytimes didn't. The CNN guy was also rude as per the video.

If you're going to debate, please use intelligible sentences. By "cnn blew it up and other such as the nytimes didn't", I think you are trying to say the CNN coverage was somehow more explosive. What about it was different?

blueblood · January 12, 2017

6 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

If you're going to debate, please use intelligible sentences. By "cnn blew it up and other such as the nytimes didn't", I think you are trying to say the CNN coverage was somehow more explosive. What about it was different?

I'll debate how I please.

Refer to the wsj article for more explosive.

BubberMiley · January 12, 2017

10 minutes ago, blueblood said:

I'll debate how I please.

Refer to the wsj article for more explosive.

You can't express how the CNN article differed from the rest of the media? Trump just told you it was so you accepted that as fact? How surprising.

blueblood · January 12, 2017

Just now, BubberMiley said:

You can't express how the CNN article differed from the rest of the media? Trump just told you it was so you accepted that as fact? How surprising.

It was different. They commented and the times didn't. There's a reason CNN got slapped and the others didn't.