WaPo’s HIT PIECE on Russia Influencing Election FALLS APART!

the us intelligence services official statements are proof, period.

 

Cyber security experts cannot rule out false flags. The only way you could know for sure is if you were in Russia watching somebody hack.

 

that is completely incorrect. willful ignorance.

 

Not surprised that you don't understand.

 

The Bush Adminstration had a direct line to Fox News every day he was President. Karl Rove coordinated the spin with Roger Ailes.

Meghn Kelly briefed Trump on her questions before the first debate.

You don't have a leg to stand on!

- - - Updated - - -

 

Champagne corks popped in Moscow with the news of Trump's win.

On Tuesday, they popped again in Bejing when Trump repudiated the TPP, exactly what the Chinese were hoping he would do!

 

So if you voted for Trump you are a "Commie"? LOL...the further the insane left moves to the left the more they become ill liberal feminized versions of the far right. It's hilarious.

 

People have definitely been conditioned to dismiss various news sources out-of-hand...

 

Feel free to take it up with the "left wing". I said no such thing. You simply made up (*)(*)(*)(*) about what I posted. Once again.

SSDD.

 

That doesn't even make sense. The USSR broke apart almost 1/4 of a century ago.

So you're knocking the left for thinking Putin's idea to put the USSR back together under Putin's leadership is bad?

Interesting.

 

I just noted this in another thread...how many leftists have disavowed connection to the left. Can't be shame, they have none. Must be a new "clever" stratagem.

Correction....you said no such thing specifically! The message your many posts connecting Trump to Putin (your earlier post here continues the theme) conveyed is a frequent one and you are disavowing this meme too, even as you make it.
SS, DD as you so charmingly put it, indeed.

 

I couldn't care less what you claim you've "noted." Based on your history you have zero credibility with me. Others can decide for themselves.

I never said or implied "you're a commie if you voted for Trump" as you falsely claimed. It would be totally bizarre to say that since Russia has not been communist for over 25 years. Only a person thoroughly ignorant of history would make such a statement.

You simply made up (*)(*)(*)(*) about what I posted. Once again. SSDD.

 

I'm very happy with that arrangement and that's the way it's been whether you endorse it or not.

Of course I disagree and your post history (and that of other leftists in general) substantiates my claim. A vote for Trump was portrayed by the left as a vote, in effect, for Putin and his policies.
Your disagreement here is pointless.

Of course my use of the term "Commies" was a hyperbolic bit of irony and why am I not surprised you didn't catch on.

I'm sure it seems that way in your world.

 

yeah and russia does not try to influence the elections

- - - Updated - - -

 

No I meant they can hate Putin because he's not a socialist. If he was a good little commie they'd be loving everything he does.

 

The hardcore leftists who assumed total charge of the Dem Party during the waning months of the G.W. Bush administration were indeed caught flatfooted from their leadership to the Mainstream Media that functions as their now permanent propaganda arm. They had made no worst case scenario plans because collectively they KNEW that the fix was in and that Hillary Clinton would be the next president.

They even believed in their own skewed polling numbers, which is really bizarre since they were the ones that ordered those numbers to be cooked in the first place for propaganda purposes. It was surrealistic.

But yes, in fact there will be Dem Party members inside the House and Senate who will begin working with the Right and with President Trump, because some piece of a political loaf is better than none at all.

 

They are going to have to. All of this superimposed on a conservative majority SCOTUS for the next generation.

Best. Election. Ever.

 

Well, yeah. Back when he was a novelty item.

Nah, it had started well before then.

You're aware I could hardly be called a Trump supporter, right? Heck, if it weren't for the propositions on the California ballot, I might well have sat this one out. In any event, I'm well aware of why Trump shouldn't be President. The only reason I would vote for him is because Hilla is worse than he is.

Oh Dear Lord. Google Brian Williams. Google Jayson Blair. Google Rathergate. Google - oh, the heck with it. I could run out of electrons highlighting Legacy Press fraud.

You know, I mentioned Rathergate earlier. What ultimately took down Dan Rather, member of a *cough* respected news agency - and he was schooled by a bunch of bloggers. People that CBS scorned. Yeah, I wouldn't put that much stock in them.

I think you meant to say Liberal media. You know, the ones who came up with this gem:



Yeah, there's your circus of information right there. There's proof that facts don't matter, facts such as, y'know, voting results. Facts. I agree, they sure are inconvenient. But you're aiming at the wrong target.

I did indeed. Her point was a valid one. She has a large fan base who buy her music and merchandise because she doesn't tilt to one side or the other politically. And the press, which is bleeding customers, could have followed the same lesson - but didn't. It set out to alienate half it's potential customer base, and did so with spectacular results. As a result, you won't find many conservatives buying a copy of the NYT. And why should they? I mean, look:



I couldn't find a bigger image, but check out that headline from America's Paper of Interest: "Democrats, students, and foreign allies face the reality of a Trump presidency." Look who they're playing to. Their own interests: Democrats, students. Not, y'know - Americans. Not what's first on Thumps agenda. It's all about democrats. That special subset of Americans that the NYT caters to.

THAT is the real problem facing the Legacy Media. The fact that it's blatantly trivialized half the country. The fact that it doesn't care that it has. No, wait - more like the fact that it has no idea such people even exist and are stunned when they actually do anything like vote or have an opinion that disagrees with the elites or anything.

 

It was the most entertaining election ever. But now Trump has got to produce. There is a huge difference between election promises and getting the job done. We shall see.

 

Funny thing is that Joe McCarthy was right about the "Democrats".

 

Well, there are a couple of things worth noting.

You've already run out of electrons. The fact is that you had to go back more than a decade to come up with even general items to support your claim.

And even then, you had to add Brian Williams to your list. Of course, you conveniently left out one thing.. When Brian Williams was exposed, he got demoted. Meanwhile, across the street at Fox, Bill O'Reilly was exposed for doing the exact same thing, and not only did he not get demoted, but Roger Ailes gave him an attaboy, and the same right wing hypocrites who blasted Williams tuned in to watch O'Liely lie to his audience about his history.

In fact, there are few better examples to show the fact that the right wing infotainment audience does not mind being lied to, and never holds liars accountable as long as they like the liar or what he has to say.

I have always believed that Rather was set up by Karl Rove, but we won't know until Rove is on his deathbed. In any case, Rather fell into the trap.

Of course, there is no shortage of stories in right wing media that are based on fabricated evidence, faked video or nothing at all. And, in many cases, right wingers believe accept bogus stories as gospel truth.

And citing a Newsweek cover that turned out to be wrong does not make Newsweek liars. It just means they printed a premature conclusion, just as Col McCormick did in 1948.

You close by answering my question regarding whether you know the difference between news and entertainment

You do not, and you make that very clear.

The Dolly Parton analogy does not apply. Journalists are not there to build a fan base, and certainly are not there to pander to their fan base by telling it what it wants to hear.

OF course, right wing media does that. And, as at least one of your own examples demostrates, the fans don't really care if what they are being sold is true or not, all they care about is looking at their prejudices, fears and lack of knowledge of the larger world around them in the electronic mirror that right wing media holds up for them to admire themselves in.

Your attack on the New York Times illustrates that point perfectly. You object to a straighforward and factual headline

, because, evidently, you don't appreciate the fact that Democrats, students, and the rest of the world view the election of a man with a child's understanding of politics, world affairs and policy as a serious problem.

Sorry, but that headline was hardly different from similar headlines in the press all over the world, and particularly in those countries that have always been staunch US allies in the decades since the end of WWII.

You object to the Times drawing a line under the fact that Donald Trump is already an international pariah, and that this represents a very real potential threat to the Western alliance, and a real opportunity for our rivals, particularly the Russians (who celebrated by moving ballistic missles into Kaliningrad inside the contiguous border of the EU less than a week after the election) and the Chinese (you could hear the champagne corks pop in Bejing as Trump gave them exactly what they wanted when he repudiated the TPP).

If you think news should be a mirror of your prejudices, you have plenty of choices. None of them are reliable, and none of them are likely to leave you well informed or arm you with much useful information..

But you can revel in the knowledge that there is a whole commercial "news" infrastruture that will tell you exactly what you already believe.

 

Agreed. Lets see if Trump can get the GOP organized and cohesive in congress-it will be like herding cats.

 

What was that you said? Something to the general effect of people being unable to back up their claims even with one example when asked to prove that the media lies? I gave you three huge ones that you couldn't possibly have missed unless you were trying to hide from them. And I deliberately used the Rathergate one because it tied in neatly with the next paragraph. You are moving the goalposts. And while I could easily find very recent examples of media lies (Heck, Rolling Stone and Rapegate alone deserve a book) I kinda suspect you're not arguing in good faith here so I'm not seeing too much reason to continue on this track.

Yeah, so? It was so obvious. And completely hilarious.

While I love a good conspiracy theory, I'm afraid yours doesn't have legs. Nah, Occam's Razor works here: Danny went with the story that fit his schema, and so what if the evidence was bogus. The trap was of Rather's own making.

No, it means they ran with their narrative. They live in their own world - what was it someone said? A world where facts don't matter?

But it DOES apply because they ARE pandering to their fan base. They're liberals, and they report with a liberal spin to liberal viewership who watch their liberal heroes. I mentioned Brian Williams, who became a media liability. Gosh, let's look HERE and see how news professionals blur the lines between newscasting and entertainment:

And that's just ONE example. I could find more - but whats the point?

If the press spent as much time investigating Obamacare (which it should have) as it did investigating Trump (which they also should have and did) then we wouldn't have it today. But instead they practically shilled for it. The Legacy Media is a de facto arm of the DNC. I assume you've looked thru WikiLeaks? Plenty of proof there of collusion between the two.