As in
From MSNBC: "Senior U.S. intel official tells NBC News that Trump, Russia dossier is “unvetted disinformation”
Unvetted disinformation? WTF is that?
You can have unvetted information or vetted disinformation, but not unvetted disinformation. They’re mutually exclusive, hopefully for obvious reasons.
John McCain presented what he believed to be credible evidence of Russian blackmail of Trump. John McCain. Republican Senator. This is a newsworthy event. The fact that there’s a document and John McCain presented it for investigation is worth reporting. Do you seriously disagree with this? Do you think that it’s “fake news” if they report on that?
They didn’t create this story, they reported on AN ACTUAL EVENT INVOLVING AN ACTUAL DOCUMENT BY AN ACTUAL REPUBLICAN SENATOR. CNN and Buzzfeed did not make up the existance of John McCain, nor the fact that he turned this in, nor the fact that he believes it to come for a credible source. Nor did they fabricate the contents of the document. CNN didn’t even release it at all - they said they were investigating - Buzzfeed released it but with the caveat that it should be read as unconfirmed.
No, I wouldn’t, because that would be fucking retarded. I might say “the report is probably fake fake” or “it’s implausible” or something like that if it were out of the blue, but I wouldn’t call it fake news when news agencies reported on the fact that high level officials are having discussions about a document which they think needs investigation.
“Obama turns into a lizard and eats a baby” is fake news. “John McCain presented a document to the FBI that he believes to be a credible” is not fake news.
I don’t think you’re actually failing to understand this.
I already said that in the post you’re responding to.
“Compare this to right wing actual fake news where they know from the start that what they’re publishing is a lie, they made it up themselves, and they tell their readers it’s the absolute truth.”
What? They treated crazy anti-Obama stories like they were real debates all the time. The birther thing was around for years. The media is so afraid of being called liberal that they give right wing clap trap way too much credibility instead of just junking it like they should.
You have absolutely no evidence of your assertion. You, yourself, are so partisan that you can only view my opposition to you in this instance as being the opposite side of the same coin. It simply isn’t true. I have never displayed the sort of behavior you’re accusing me of, and you have absolutely no evidence that I have.
This has already been explained. The correct definition of “fake news” is “falsehoods generated and circulated by some person or group in a style that misrepresents them as news reports”. Please try to keep up with the class.
Indeed. The difference is that, to Trump’s base voters, pussy-grabbing is manly. This stuff is most decidedly unmanly.
[QUOTE=Omg a Black Conservative]
Sounds to me like you’re reading his tweets through your own biases.
[/QUOTE]
Nah, it is clear that Trump is the one resorting to hysteria.
This appears to be the new standard mode of attack- find a term that has gotten traction on the left (safe spaces, fake news, trigger warnings) and abuse/overuse/mock the hell out of it until it has no meaning any more.
Exactly. An arrogant mysoginist can easily convince himself that there is nothing wrong with being outed publicly as a p-grabber, but it doesn’t work that way with “deviant” activity like golden showers.
He didn’t participate, he watched. Two women engage in it. As he’s misogynistic, I think that would be right up his alley.
I don’t even understand what he’s going for with that analogy. What role does he play in that analogy?
Or is this one of those classic Trump projection things where he accuses everyone else of whatever he’s doing or planning on doing?
Speaking of “things you have to believe are true that are not”, do you intend to back up (or back away from) your earlier claim in this thread that “we’ve known […] for months […] that Trump is heavily in debt to Russian banks and/or mobsters and/or the Russian government”?
I thought that the new “standard mode of attack” was to claim a commonly used term (safe spaces, fake news) as one of their own, and berate others from not following the new Groupspeak?
I can hardly wait for the usual anti-Republican, anti-conservative, anti-Trump comedians to explain to the Democrat collective how the Democrat collective should feel about this horrific situation where people reject their claims. THOSE people aren’t listening to us. Why aren’t they listening to us? They must listen to us. Don’t we think we are smarter than them? We tell each other we’re smarter than them. Why don’t they respect us when we tell them how to think?
Is this another one of those fake news stories I’ve been hearing about?
Maybe if you said all, most, or the majority of…what, dude? I have no idea what you didn’t say the majority of. I’m quite sure you said all of what I quoted you as saying.
You can’t even do a good job of being grammatically pedantic. If you’re gonna play that game, you need to have game.
Maybe you’re trying to ask, “do you know what ‘some means’ means?”
Yes, I do, for I am a man of some means. 
Telling people how to think is something I can get behind. Telling people what to think is where people cross the line.
Even for the Russians, it would be impossible to blackmail Trump. You just can’t.
/ KGB guy with heavy Russian accent " Look here, Mr. Trump, it vod be a shame if deez images I just showde you, of you chjeering on deez ladies, found their way to the public, no? "
Trump: “Nonsense. I would never do such a depraved thing. Those images are forged”.
KGB guy with heavy Russian accent: “Bod you were right there! Ve filmed these last week!”
Trump: “No, YOU were there. Those women are ugly. I can get better women. You’re jealous. All this is fake news meant to tarnish my reputation, because I’m so succesfull. Sad.”
KGB guy with heavy Russian accent: “Bod…”
Trump: ::presses buzzer:: " Show this gentleman out, please."
Your “If” doers not protect you from your violation of the rules. (Particularly when you go on, later in the post, to accuse your opponent of holding the views you “hypothesize” here.)
Do not call other posters liars or fools in this forum.
[ /Moderating ]
Why would I back away from it? He’s in hock for a lot of rubles. You’ll see.
I don’t know, I kind of had this vague idea that if you’ve made a definitive assertion about something with no evidence, and someone else provides a cite which casts some doubt on that, that the straightforward thing to do would be one of those two options. Shouldn’t be too hard either, if indeed we’ve known it for months.
Your call, of course.
Yes; Rubio, apparently, isn’t going to roll over and play dead when it comes to Trump’s drive to please Putin, the way most of his GOP colleagues plainly intend to do. Good for Rubio.
By the way, as much as I’d like to know what blackmail material Putin may have on Trump—surely it’s nearly as important to know what Putin may have on Tillerson. Tillerson certainly has been adamant in his refusal to consider whether the Russian bombing of civilian targets in Syria might be “war crimes”…so much so that it makes one wonder.