Second cup of Coffee Talk

[forty_three]

Pfft...you guys are way off. Reddit told me there's nothing to worry about here, so I think it's time to move on.

And clearly the fact that the market was up, then down, then up again, then down again, then up again, is definitive proof that Trump is innocent and the entire Lamestream Media® is wrong, yet again.

I hadn't considered this. Thanks for the detailed analysis. I will double check your work on INfoWars and Breitbart.

 

[RobBase]

As a Canadian, maybe I'm not up to date on this stuff, but wasn't the Comey controversy always that Trump asked him to stop interrogating Flynn? Has that been discredited? I don't really remember any claims that Comey was investigating Trump, other than the latter going out of his way to point out he wasn't under investigation.

Good question. President Trump is allegedly quoted as saying:

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “ He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Of course the left assumes this is our President ordering Comey to do something illegal - because that's how they think. Same as them freaking out about the time Trump asked Comey for 100% loyalty - Because to dems "loyalty" means to break the rules and do whatever I need.

Flynn did nothing wrong. He had been through the ringer by the media. This is just another example of Trump showing his humane side. Flynn was a good guy.

In addition to that, McCabe, who testified under oath that Trump never tried to stop any investigation, was briefed by Comey and has access to these memos.

So ya, just more nothing from Trump critics.

 

[RobBase]

the entire Lamestream Media® is wrong, yet again.

Oops!

 

[RobBase]

OF COURSE: CNN Removes Countdown After Realizing Comey’s Testimony Helps Trump

 

[forty_three]

Woman who told father of Sandy Hook victim shooting was a hoax is going to jail

There's a special place in hell for people like her.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

hehe

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Woman who told father of Sandy Hook victim shooting was a hoax is going to jail

There's a special place in hell for people like her.

"In addition to the prison time and home arrest, Richards will serve three years on probation and is barred from accessing a list of conspiracy theory websites."

That's an interesting element of the sentence. I wonder what the enforcement mechanism is on that and how they intend to keep it updated.

 

[forty_three]

"In addition to the prison time and home arrest, Richards will serve three years on probation and is barred from accessing a list of conspiracy theory websites."

That's an interesting element of the sentence. I wonder what the enforcement mechanism is on that and how they intend to keep it updated.

I would imagine she will have to turn over any devices for analysis like a drug offender will have to take regular piss tests.

Yes, that can be defeated, but we're not dealing with a rocket surgeon here.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

 

[Comeds]

"In addition to the prison time and home arrest, Richards will serve three years on probation and is barred from accessing a list of conspiracy theory websites."

That's an interesting element of the sentence. I wonder what the enforcement mechanism is on that and how they intend to keep it updated.

So are CNN, MSNBC, ABCNews, and the like on the list? Should be, they create a narrative!

 

[RobBase]

Live streams for those interested:

COMEY TESTIMONY - LIVE STREAM • r/The_Donald

Hearings | Intelligence Committee

 

[Dacks]

Oops!

This is another thing I don't understand about the US right now, this weird hatred for mainstream media. The press is always trying to cultivate sources, and they go through a process of vetting their sources. Depending on their faith in the source and what's being said, they decide whether to publish or not.

Sometimes the sources are right, sometimes they're wrong. Nobody bats 100%. But a proper media source will admit they are wrong, like above. Isn't that a good thing? What's the alternative? Ignore sources completely? I would expect that CNN would treat the source in the first screencap with less credibility. But sources will occasionally be wrong, especially when they are talking about future events.

On the flip side, it seems like there is an effort to pick out a handful of incorrect claims (like the one above) and claim that that invalidates all claims. But we know that's not true. Didn't sources also correctly provide the info about Comey's conversation with Trump re: stopping the investigation? And about the memos that Comey keeps? Wasn't that also accused of being fake news, but turned out to be correct?

Sure, we can claim that everything is "fake news", and even if 90% turns out to be correct, point at the other 10% and say "See, it WAS fake news!". But that's intellectually dishonest, and destructive. A key component of reasonable society is some agreement on common facts, but the US seems to be so divided, that there is no starting point for debate.

So, an honest question: knowing that no media source bats 100% on their sources / claims, what's the value in ignoring all news? Both side of the mainstream media political spectrum have their misses (I'm thinking Fox and the Seth Rich stuff as a pretty scary example). But if you ignore MSM and go to the next level, it's even worth. You get Pizzagate type stuff, which is not only batshit crazy, but actually dangerous, to the point where guys with guns are showing up at family restaurants.

So honestly: what's the better alternative to the MSM?

 

[Dacks]

On the same topic, wasn't this assault also accused of being fabricated fake news? Now Gianforte is basically admitting that it was completely true.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

The comedian Bill Burr hit the nail on the head with political/mainstream media. The problem is it's not honest, it's like watching the home and away broadcast. Same game, totally different narratives being told. The one announcing team is crucifying the refs for a missed call while the other teams homer announcers are praising the refs for a great noncall. And back and forth it goes. Your best bet is to come to your own conclusions. Basically watch the game on mute.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

lol

 

[dash]

^

I hope that's Gorilla tape.

 

[RobBase]

This is another thing I don't understand about the US right now, this weird hatred for mainstream media. The press is always trying to cultivate sources, and they go through a process of vetting their sources. Depending on their faith in the source and what's being said, they decide whether to publish or not.

Sometimes the sources are right, sometimes they're wrong. Nobody bats 100%. But a proper media source will admit they are wrong, like above. Isn't that a good thing? What's the alternative? Ignore sources completely? I would expect that CNN would treat the source in the first screencap with less credibility. But sources will occasionally be wrong, especially when they are talking about future events.

On the flip side, it seems like there is an effort to pick out a handful of incorrect claims (like the one above) and claim that that invalidates all claims. But we know that's not true. Didn't sources also correctly provide the info about Comey's conversation with Trump re: stopping the investigation? And about the memos that Comey keeps? Wasn't that also accused of being fake news, but turned out to be correct?

Sure, we can claim that everything is "fake news", and even if 90% turns out to be correct, point at the other 10% and say "See, it WAS fake news!". But that's intellectually dishonest, and destructive. A key component of reasonable society is some agreement on common facts, but the US seems to be so divided, that there is no starting point for debate.

So, an honest question: knowing that no media source bats 100% on their sources / claims, what's the value in ignoring all news? Both side of the mainstream media political spectrum have their misses (I'm thinking Fox and the Seth Rich stuff as a pretty scary example). But if you ignore MSM and go to the next level, it's even worth. You get Pizzagate type stuff, which is not only batshit crazy, but actually dangerous, to the point where guys with guns are showing up at family restaurants.

So honestly: what's the better alternative to the MSM?

Another good question.

America First! • r/The_Donald

Best to keep your eyes on everything to get the big picture.

The pizzagate stuff wasn't fake news. It was a collection of extremely questionable pictures and screen shots of real kids, real social media accounts and real art in the homes of some very well known DNC employees depicting children being harmed. At worst, it was a collection of some crazy weird shit by people connected to the DNC. Of course the msm scrambled to "debunk" it. How you debunk real photos and facts - only they can explain that one. Are or were kids being harmed at Comet? No way to know for sure, but that was the question posed by the folks who uncovered the photos. You can research more in the link I gave you using the search engine.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

 

[jstewismybastardson]

 

[jstewismybastardson]