The debate "Trump's attack on the press is un-American and dangerous" was started by
January 16, 2017, 7:11 pm.
22 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 33 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
TheExistentialist posted 2 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 11 arguments to the agreers part.
neveralone posted 3 arguments, MrShine posted 17 arguments, ProfessorX posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
TheExistentialist, n0b0dysher0, PoliticsAsUsual, thereal, wmd, raghav, MlgLeprechaun69, nellie11iah and 14 visitors agree.
neveralone, Jpenksa, historybuff, LeftoverEye70, Brayden24, Blue_ray, ProfessorX, dj41523, MrShine, slipknot, redstar and 22 visitors disagree.
Missed a reply, sorry.
Policies are not the same as laws, sure, but when you are in the government there is little difference, as a breach in policy can have criminal, not just civil repercussions.
Ignoring information? A source can always be doubted, when I used the WikiLeaks emails the emails are the verifiers, not WikiLeaks. Again, the moral claim hurts my heart, but I doubt any buisnesswise hasn't been hit with a claim. It could be settled I. court, I don't dispute the legal system if the result lands firmly on innocence or guilt (firmly), but there is a difference in comparing the two. I'm not quite sure where you got "suddenly bad info" from
Claims are made all the time, that's without a doubt. Usually there's no substance. and going back to ignoring evidence, are you not guilty of ignoring DNC's collusion if you say the emails had nothing important, one undeniable confirmation among the possible conspiracies to discuss?
We ended up on this tangent due to the bipartisan claim that Hillary's flack was undeserved while Trump's rumors very much were. In the interest on if news is being muzzled, I argued what we know about Hillary, and the faults for it. Recognizing that the FBI reported a mistake, no charges, and how that can be taken(HIPAA as an example was a mistake, hopefully with the archiving rules provided we can clarify) as a person existing on a different standard, as nobody else wouldn't have been convicted. But hey, if judgements change based on the person, not cleared CE or responsibility that's fine. Security wouldn't have been taken as an issue unless it actually was, and as it is with your example to say private emails are secure, they are but nowhere near the security it needs. Debating that isn't subjective, but all the techy bull pulls us into other talks.
As I have asked before, what legal action muzzles the media? What has been done? Is it an extension on slander laws that already exist? Is it really a leak if it's been made up, as we know the information was unverified? (We know some news sources act more like tabloids)
Bias will always exist. But if we want to pull earlier into the conversation your bias also condemns trump for something he wasn't charged for. And in one case in comparison to the other, we can see favoritism. Had they actually said innocent, rather than no charges there would be no problem, really! That is why even with the smarter people, their official statements are and will, be less credible. The scale vs the human element.
I don't think I lost you along the way, and stuck to something touching but not on topic. So to return, what muzzling? What legal action?
Sorry, I missed one of your points.
With respect to the "smarter people" aspect of my argument, your problem is that this isn't a physical dimension we are measuring. It is an interpretation of a complex legal system. That is why their intelligence and expertise outweighs your opinion or mine. You are not arguing proven fact vs opinion. You are essentially arguing that your biased and uninformed opinion has more merit than that of the experts who have looked into the matter.
Here is the fundamental flaw in your argument. Private servers are still secure, just not as much so. You house is less secure than a bank vault, which is in turn less secure than Fort Knox. Does that mean leaving valuables in a safe in your house is leaving them unsecured?
The FBI did say that it was improperly stored, but you are ignoring everything else they said when they released their findings. They know far more than you what was involved, so for you to reject their findings means you believe you know more than them. You want Clinton to be guilty of a crime because it fits your bias. You are twisting the truth to try to justify your bias.
She has been found not to have committed a crime by the FBI. Therefore she did not. Your arguing that she did can by definition prove nothing since the proper authorities have already released their findings. We can debate and argue about whether we agree with that finding, but that will not change the fact that the experts who looked into it disagree with you and they have massively more credibility than you.
We have also strayed fairly far from the topic. Do you think Trump should muzzle any news outlets that are critical of him? If destroying father free press and freedom of speech something that fits with American values at this point?
"My point here is that policies didn't allow for information to be unsecured, and that misuse can be a crime. Is that not true? Then, if altering emails has been determined to be possible beyond the key verification, provide the source."
the key word is: policies.
she broke guidelines and deserves disciplinary actions and a thorough review.
she did not sell, she did not steal.
she did lie, and at the least her staff actively covered it up. that may be criminal, and deserves a stiffer penalty... but not lock her up, and no bigger a disqualifier than quite a few of Trump's unethical activities. like trying to steal an old lady's house.
and I'm not buying your "suddenly this information is bad" line. the source is consistently legitimate, and the information is pertinent. the emails had nothing of significance, yet this suggest the possibility of collusion with a hostile foreign power. and your just brushing it off!!!!
even if it may leave a false bad taste right now, a open and thorough vindication will only turn the tables and legitimize trump.
it shocks me how you can so easily dismiss such a nationally important claim! even if it most likely wasn't true, shouldn't you check on that? and if it is true, and nobody outside the administration that he will soon command ever heard about it, no one may ever hear about it. the leaker is a national hero.
Quick addition before I get replies, A regulation from 1995 from the NARA (National Archives and Record Administration) seems relevant, and within the timeline.
Would we like to discuss the 2009 federal records act? Most sources saying that no wrongdoing was done cite the timeline does not line up with the actual passing and changes. Other sources claim that the application would have covered at the time. I hesitate to share a source.
I concede that I lost focus of who I was debating with. HIPPAs outlines are readily available and not cluttered language, so I used information on Civil protections, not national protections, to convey the actual price of most damages nowhere near as lenient.
Having information that needs to be secure left as unsecure is a crime, regardless if you believe, keyword believe, that a private server holding federal information is not. Which is why acknowledging it as a mistake, which the FBI did, is criminal. I suppose using HIPAA as an example was not correct, but that doesn't change the issue. For example, suppose someone entrusted with information, via Patriot act or otherwise, was found to have a flash drive of information in their house, and regularly conveyed withing the government with a caveat, the email server was private.
Far smarter people? A concept is more trustworthy than a person. If a concept can prove that a weight measured on a scale is indeed correct, and prove is the keyword, then why would I trust someone who holds objects over the scale?
I acknowledge embarrassment and unintended distancing. I didn't recognize the disconnect on a source for a second time, which does mean I will have to carefully follow if I want to cite. But I don't want people saying it relies on my word alone, when there are facts, laws, ECT. Plain language is preferred to, since sentences are easy to spin.
My point here is that policies didn't allow for information to be unsecured, and that misuse can be a crime. Is that not true? Then, if altering emails has been determined to be possible beyond the key verification, provide the source.
U agree with you about one thing, critical reading was not used. You obviously didn't read your source before posting it since you are now discrediting the value of your own reference. The criminal section says;
"Covered entities and specified individuals, as explained below, who "knowingly" obtain or disclose individually identifiable health information"
We have already established that having a private server is frowned upon it is not illegal. So your argument falls apart.
I do agree that national security is different, but if you feel that way why are you equating two? You are destroying your own argument at this point by distancing it from your reference.
Also, people far smarter and more knowledgeable about the late have already looked into the emails extensively and determined it was not illegal.
Finally, you were debating the authenticity and verification with someone else. Try to pay attention. It is somewhat embarrassing for you to be asking if I concede a debate I wasn't involved in.
It doesn't seem like critical reading was used. First off, ignorance of the law is not a means to break the law. Misuse and mishandling can go either way, but to keep a private server, a full server, not just a file mind you, cannot possibly go without thought or notice.
Next off, HIPAA and National security are two different things. While explaining that fines are used in most cases, and jail depending, you claim a "slap on the wrist". It was not having files you aren't supposed to, it is leaving files vulnerable that others should not. And even as an attorney, she should understand how that plays out.
And she didn't get that slap on the wrist. And slap on the wrist acknowledges wrongdoing. Seeing as you didn't go after emails, perhaps you've conceded the authentication method is very well holding.
Did you read your link before using it? It makes a distinction between unknowingly violating their privacy rules, which amounts to a slap on the wrist, and knowing breaking the rupes, which is when the DOJ gets involved. Since she wasn't trying to get information she had no right to, it wouldn't qualify as a criminal violation. You have effectively spelled out why it was not criminal. Thank you.
I would also ask, since the example came to mind, you know HIPAA? If information was mishandled with them how would it be less drastic in cases of national security? https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/hipaa-violations-enforcement
http://study.com/academy/lesson/criminal-negligence-definition-law-examples.html this may not provide a full page of work, but it does describe negligence. I suppose a better example would be (as provided by the link) driving while drowsy. Also, I work in an IT field (not too techy myself believe it or not) and I know that storing information improperly can be cause for termination.
https://wikileaks.org/DKIM-Verification.html This link explains how domain keys do not work that way, as do this http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikileaks-emails.html?m=1 very plain language is used in both, because these keys are used for just that sort of verification!
Your confusion on the slices reference is in regard to an email requesting for slices using a range of slices used, a time and the sort that simply does not add up to pizza. Pedophilia is a guess by some, but simply put that isn't how you order food.
? what are you talking about slices, the only thing pizza gate had to do with pizza was the shop.
I'm no hacker wiz, but these things can be faked, mirrored, or used as decoys. also the emails could have been edited, and when exactly were these domain keys verified? after or before publication?
the red light example is silly. whether they wanted to crash or not, they chose to run the light, and that is the illegal part, not the accident. that is an actual crime.
no innocent mistakes can be prosecuted. at most you can be expected to be fired, if massive damages, restitution in civil court. please provide a counter example of any criminal prosecution over unintentional mistakes and any reference to this key because I'm not tech savvy enough to just know this stuff.
Depends on your job. There are levels of security where doing the wrong action, regardless of intention behind handling, is a crime. Reason being? It directly affects our society. If you drive through red lights without intending to crash, it's negligence, and a crime. Which is why the comparison says nobody I know who would have done that would be considered innocent or have gotten off.
Verified by who? Don't you mean by what? In this case, it's the Domain keys, not a person. The materials in the leak proved DNC collusion, as with other campaign issues, sharing as well as funding sabatoge. Don't want to go too deep with missing money or other conspiracies, if domain keys aren't enough to prove outright.
In the emails, I can't speak on behalf of pizzagate. I don't know if I buy it yet, but I'll at least follow what the logic says. Ordering a range of slices, for a certain price, along with a timeframe, I'm pretty sure thats not how pizzas are ordered, or anything like that in general. When you order something, you don't as "however much you'll give for this price, at lowest 8 slices at most 15".
Checking the actual leak material should provide perspective.
she is responsible!
but that is not the same as guilty.
if I screw up in my job I am totally responsible for the mess, but I didn't commit a crime!!!!
and the wiki information was verified by who exactly? and I wasn't talking about the wiki Hillary information, which didn't say anything all that damning... I was talking about all the other nonsense. the whole pizza shop child sex ring was based on a few sentences in the emails that someone created conspiracy around. I'm talking about the shit storm of nonsense the right flooded the news with about her.
there wasn't even anything serious in those emails!
Thankfully, these comments will be short.
In cases where she had as much information as she did, it is a crime, and it is considered negligent. No other person would have been declared AKA innocent. Rather responsible.
Releasing information still under review. So you mean unverified? Unlike the WikiLeaks where it was the material that was verified? There are significant differences, I hope you would notice. I don't believe all anti Hillary propoganda, and some of it is slander, but peddling unverified information is no better than tabloid, and when information is presented a certain way, it can harm careers. That is why posting intentional lies can be punished (in this case, since it isn't either other way, it isn't intentional lies yet, but if no legal action is taken against the paper, no harm done, right?)
I'm not sure what parts of that were replies to me or to other people. I don't wish to take over other people's debates.
I will say that the FBI most certainly did find no evidence of criminal activity aka innocent. it did say careless, aka not illegal.
therefore, you are wrong there.
also this passage:
"Letting out information to the public is fine, it's free speech. However, a claim based on something that could harm a politician's career with no basis, and likely the intent to harm is reckless. It's tabloid, and while we can say 'I don't know if there's a teapot in Earth's orbit, but our unverified source says so' only perpetuates the idea that slander can be allowed. The source should not be the reliable factor, but the information."
the information is still under review, which is all the article said, but you completely avoided the main point. the double standard compared to the right wing reaction to the rampant, cheered on, anti hillary slander?
Constitutional protection does say that there is a freedom of speech, but where is the line drawn on slander? I will repeat, so that we can differentiate between the claims out in the ether and facts.
The FBI's statement didn't say "innocent", it said mistake, no charges. It didn't say she didn't compromise, it didn't say she didn't do it, it was classified as a mistake. No conspiracy, checking videos available do have the FBI dance around their final statement for a reason.
Letting out information to the public is fine, it's free speech. However, a claim based on something that could harm a politician's career with no basis, and likely the intent to harm is reckless. It's tabloid, and while we can say 'I don't know if there's a teapot in Earth's orbit, but our unverified source says so' only perpetuates the idea that slander can be allowed. The source should not be the reliable factor, but the information.
It isn't even that the list compiled had a list of lies, people will involve numbers and speak about things without verifying the complete information behind them. It's bad policy to speak without being sure your statements aren't accurate but in politics there is no waiting to check and there certainly is a need to sway the public. Lie means that it is intentional misleading, if we compared factual statements to general understanding people, those people will pull facts out of their ass.
The liar basis doesn't go for much, the press's handling hasn't been so well, so what is it about this conversation that actually attacks free speech? Talking down to tabloids, or having to speak as politicians are expected isn't any different under any presidency, the exclusive interviews and claims towards different stations are all that's changed.
I hope not.
so are we really going to let trump trample over our constitutionally protected press?
back to the slander claim.
when mainstream right wing media put out reports like hillary is a liar, a criminal, a traitor, a murderer based on coulda, and mighta, with investigation after investigation came verified innocent. yall cheered it.
presidential campaign rallies of lock her up based on less than unverified evidence. disproven evidence and conspiracy theories.
those all even came to conclusions on their own. that is slander. they declared it so against her. she was guilty.
buzzfeed did not declare guilt. buzzfeed ran an article about an ongoing investigation by the fbi regarding our soon to be leader.
sounds pretty relevant don't ya think?
without assumption nor conclusion. with no declaration of guilt and tons of disclaimers. buzzfeed simply did its job. the investigation is clearly real. therefore real news.
and let's not forget Trump's declaration to "put it all out there and let the people decide what's true!" what happened to that?
even if politifact went out of their way to disproportionately bias check more conservatives doesn't change the validity of the individual fact checks. it would make any claims that one side lies more than the other made by them is invalid.
but are you really going to ignore the fact your being lied to?
and don't dismiss your case just cause we supposedly dismiss Hillary. we don't when we discuss these issues amongst ourselves, but we have to defend her against some of the outlandish nonsense the right says about her. and even if we did, would that be a valid excuse to be dumb cause your opponents are dumb?
I'll certainly concede on the links. I wanted to provide the idea for discussion on how Politifact can be biased. I don't doubt the websites credibility, but sometimes their bias will show when considering an answer, such as when I said that it cited the failing cities as half of a lie when it should have been considered fully.
As you noted on the provided website that by considering at least of the few refuted polifact listed are true, I only wanted to provide the idea that the opposite was the case.
Trump Effect was not named by that website, speaking on how it is phrased not framed is nitpicking.
If we want to discuss surveys and bias, if coke does a study, a founded firsthand study on coke, and determined Coke can be good for you, is it a surprise?
The FBI did not say crime, but they did say mistake. And as I've said, nobody at that level with that clearance doesn't get mistake written on their verdict, they get negligence, and that can be a crime.
About nonviolent protestors? Think again. How many attempts on Trump vs Hillary? 1 actual attempt and one attention seeker that knocked into people then shouted 'gun'. Doesn't that interrupt discourse, at least acknowledging the highest forms of disruption.
And the distinction between free speech and not? That is what I'd like to discuss. How did trump incite violence? Retaliation should not be held back should it save the distress caused bully aggressors, before we discuss the nonpeacful protestors.
Oh good, you have provided a blog post arguing that selectively fact checking to further a political agenda is still valid fact checking that is done by the author of the previous ridiculously biased blog post pretending to be fact checking.
The author is arguing that only checking convenient facts is still legitimate fact checking. While he is not wrong, it is still fact checking, it is also fundamentally flawed. He is opposed to the idea that it is advocacy, not true fact checking, but here is is wrong.
Let's use a comparable example. If I was doing a poll and only counted the people who agree with my opinion, would you consider it a valid poll? I hope not. What Bryan White is doing is cherry picking what facts he checks, and what evidence he considers to support the position he wants. Politifact checks both sides and calls both sides out on lies.
Again though, you aren't giving me examples of things they say Trump lied about that he didn't. You are trying to argue a specific thing Clinton said that they rated as mostly true was not. That's great and all, but it doesn't help course argument. Of the 177 lies they have listed, surely you can find some that are not lies. That's what I asked for to begin with so I'm not moving the goalposts here, I'm just pointing out that you aren't actually moving towards them.
Wow, that site is terrible. They spend so long arguing that the word they is ambiguous. It is hilarious. The quote is:
Parents and teachers are already worrying about what they call the ?Trump Effect.? They report that bullying and harassment are on the rise in our schools, especially targeting students of color, Muslims, and immigrants.
If she hasn't mentioned anyone else, it is fairly safe to assume she is saying they to avoid saying "parents and teachers" over and over. That is common language, so calling it ambiguous is being intentionally obtuse. If I don't call you by name every sentence, do you wonder if I'm talking to someone else, or figure I'm continuing the same line of conversation?
It them goes on to argue that they haven't backed it up with sufficient scientific evidence. The first flaw here is that they are not that kind of research group. They don't do national surveys, so they rely on other available research. Politifact cites a study showing that there are reports of more bullying and intolerance since the election began. Arguing that the survey itself is flawed is fine, but show research that contracts it or shut up. If that is the only survey that has been done on the subject, arguing that the only available evidence is not sufficient to decide whether she was lying is stupid. They decided Clinton was largely telling the truth because the evidence generally supported her statement. Again, arguing that the evidence is flawed doesn't show that she was lying, it shows that we need more info to know for sure.
No, the FBI found that she had not committed a crime for which she would be convicted. Otherwise they would have charged her. Your slant on their findings is directly contradicted by their releases, so try to stick to what you can support with evidence.
Not sure where you are going with your argument on free speech. Could you elaborate on it a bit.
They never encouraged anyone to commit a crime. It is distasteful because they are basically saying that there was still a chance to not have trumping office, which is disrespectful, especially considering the timing.
Contrast that time Trump saying "They used to treat them very, very rough, and when they protested once, they would not do it again so easily" or "If you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them" and "Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing" about someone protesting nonviolently.
Trump is the greatest man alive! heil trump!
https://medium.com/@BWWzfc/fact-check-this-bill-adair-d9b1fb12d961#.t27ebgc86 a little more on the Politifact issue
Okay, so Let's address all those things. My critique has basis http://www.zebrafactcheck.com/politifacts-trump-effect-failures/ while this article doesn't have all the ideas, one example may be how Trump criticized democratic rule for some of our failing cities, and Politifact decided it wasn't completely false since "17 out of 20" of the cities were under Democrats. ???
It may not be a complete defense, but Trump wasn't a political agent until just recently. He didn't know these people, but that doesn't mean he's unable to work with him. It is a simple thing to pick up the ball, and drop it based on speaking about someone he doesn't know too much about. He saw a place for controversy, a bit unclear on some issues, unsubstantiated. Even when the birth certificate was released, some errors were claimed such as not being listed as "negro" in that day and age as well as layers on the document. Of course that's all rabble but the claims didn't last for years like you'd want to say.
As for the Hillary claim, the FBI didn't say nothing happened, they said "a mistake happened, no charges". I don't know anyone who would get off of that by a mistake. And as for the information, I've already explained the verification WikiLeaks does.
I will distinguish the difference between free speech and imperitives. Shouting "fire" in a movie theater is not free speech, because it suggests that a crowd must do something? Why is this important? Because Trump's free speech was a provide and do as you may, while some programs, such as this one, incited.
If it's true goal was to say this information was out in the ether, but not make a statement, it's a hollow factwise. Ifs it's politically swaying, it makes sense, otherwise in cases like the link they're more than distasteful, they're saying "But in a case of succession, to get a Democrat in the oval office, by abysmal chances..."? Why even do the program? If it wanted to be about succession, why present it in a way that begs for a democrat, and while factual on succession, says almost none of what it wants.
Though, that's not the only perspective on the program. It has facts, sure. I don't hate what is presented because it shows a long line of succession to a democrat, sure. But why find it distasteful if it provides facts? I'm sure you realize being underhanded is easier to miss by now.
So while I agree that doing such a story is distasteful, where were they lying in their reports? What false information did they provide?
You are again asserting that they have no credibility because you don't like what they are saying. That is not a valid argument. If you want to claim they have no credibility, you have to demonstrate them providing false information.
By contrast, one of the rival new networks, Fox, has reported many false things to further their political agenda. They reported that Obama met with a pirate in lieu of meeting the prime minister of Israel, they reported that college rape doesn't actually happen, claiming that gay marriage opens the door to marrying goats, among many, many other false and misleading statements and stories. Why do they get a pass but a network criticizing Trump gets labeled as fake news and ignored at press conferences?
Your "critique" of politifact was exactly as thorough and unbiased as what I usually see. You claim bias and that it's wrong but do absolutely nothing to substantiate it beyond you own bias. Every time they rule on a statement, they explain why they decided as they did. I have seen people disagree with the number of statements since some are repeated (if Trump said something at every rally, is it one statement of dozens ) but I have yet to see anyone actually back their disdain for the site with anything resembling evidence. Give me just a handful of statements they rated false or pants on fire that are true, or accept that he is a liar.
So you admit that, with regards to the birther "controversy" that he spent years pushing he is either a liar or hopelessly misinformed? How can you possibly feel that is a defense? He continued fighting it AFTER Obama released his birth certificate. This is all a matter of public record, which his lies cannot easily change.
Finally, there is a big difference between unverified information from a trusted source and information pulled from am anonymous website. The fact that they did include the disclaimer that it was unverified means they have done their due diligence to make sure that people get the information, but also know that there is a chance parts of it are inaccurate. Trump had people chant lock her up about someone who hadn't been charged, let alone convicted of a crime. There have been reports about her and false statements made by him and his campaign team throughout the election. Trump created false news. He does not get a pass to call a network that is accurately reporting information "fake news" because he doesn't like what they are saying about him. He is still bound by the same reality as the rest of us. He could criticize it as unprofessional, he could criticize them for publishing unverified information, but it is not fake news. Again, he lied.
Since the speculation line was going nice, I'll share this CNN clip that totally doesn't suggest anything, and is merely commenting (sarcasm) https://youtu.be/qxIG4dduqy0 How are these people still considered credible?
You aren't the only commenter in this thread, so the birthed issue had to be addressed for their sake. Interactions with others and the media is comparable in other cases. If the interests of the state is for the people, then when the states decide it's because the people decide (what paradox is there in that?).
As for a leak on trump, I did just explain how unverified claims released isn't responsible journalism. If CNN does that they're no more credible than a tabloid, and it seems to be a habit. It's something said for their benefit, isn't it, to stay reputable. As for who did the WikiLeaks, like I said, the truth is the truth regardless. But, there are CIA defectors, and while not all of them would like to put a bull's-eye on their back, it is more cases than less from the inside.
I'm not sure what most of that rant was about. I'm not the person talking about birthers. and your mixing interactions between competing candidates, with the interaction between a candidate or even a president with the press. I have no idea why you brought up Obama vs hillary. we are talking about the press....
it is verified that intelligence is looking into this information which is very much in the public's interest to know. it's a big claim. he can blame the officials for letting it leak, but he can't blame the press for printing it with proper and clear visible disclaimers.
can you please explain Trump's double standard on people deciding truth?
Also, reporting as unverified means "we are saying nothing" alongside a loaded statement. Figuring that reputable news sources shouldn't run around with fantasies, that is extremely irresponsible
Okay, do then let's consider politifact, their reasoning has, as some times would, determine a lie based on intention, and say, "While not wrong, when applied...?" Of course that can't always be faulted, but it does apply a rather "liberal" application on what a statement can be applied to (good pun?). If the birthed movement started in 2011, during the primaries for each, which liberal candidate had the most to gain from this?
If Trump really is as uninformed as some would say, it could be an honest mistake to carry the birthed movement. It is true that Obama has lied about being a foreigner (he has been on record saying so, but a birth certificate is hard to dispute).
The mystery sources could be the CIA officials that have been stepping out to throw others under the bus, but does it really matter who tells you the truth if it has been confirmed to be the truth?
Saying that Trump slander isn't tabloid but Hillary's is would be partisan as hell. Let's level right now, I didn't say CNN has to stop reporting, it's that they aren't required to be presented anything.
Obama did shut down Alex Jones on a rant he did about Obama "smelling like sulfur."
Opportunist being a bad thing? Consistency would be best, but then again people didn't say that when Obama criticized Hillary in the previous election run. Also even the shift isn't an attack on the media. What in particular is an attack on the media? We can discuss particulars, but there vague statements are worth questioning.
wiki leaks is not the issue. their mystery source is. and not all sources are equal. we are comparing it to something being taken seriously by our own intelligence. all the news reported was that it was being investigated. they never said it was true, they specifically said "being considered, univerified". they reported fact with no slander.
they didn't lead trump, they did nothing that you are accusing them off, although tons of right wing media did exactly that to Hillary with completely nonsense tabloid "news". this was legitamete reporting. you fail to address trumps touting of "let the people decide what's true or not" during the anti Hillary headlines.
I'm more concerned on his opportunistic double standard then an isolated attack on the media.
your Obama example is nonsense. Obama wouldn't react to Alex jones. as any dignified leader would. Hillary has been assaulted in the media forever. yet our new president takes time to tweet on some nonsense an actress says. and of course he acts like thereal and insults the actor instead of defending against the accusation.
Oh good. He stopped spreading that particular lie that was disproven in 2011 early in his campaign. I am glad to hear the president is up to date with things that happened 6 years ago.
Look at all the statements he has made that are blatantly lies. It is terrifying that the president doesn't care if people know he is lying because there are enough people stupid enough, or so paralysed by fear, that they won't notice. Why would you trust someone who lies more than he is honest?
While I know you will whine that the source is biased, they cite reasons for their determination. The worst I have seen claimed is that they inflate the numbers slightly.
He stopped pushing the birthed movement early. Every politican has lied in some way, it's in no way a defense but we can be clear, yeah?
You are really planning to try to claim Trump stopped lying early in his campaign?
You know I'll have to address how the northern movement arose long before this election, and that while he didn't immediately shut down the rumors spread he abandoned that verrry early into his campaign. There was no real interference that could be considered "shut down" or tantrum. If you don't like what someone says about you, you deny it. You also have no obligation to give those people answers. It's like what I said about Alex Jones and Obama.
If we also discuss lies, Trump lies are a generalization about claims about Hillary in general. These claims have not been cleared, and not all unfounded, I think that would be a good middle ground to agree on. There is a difference between shaking off controversy and existing on a different standard, and so those two are not as interchangable as either side wants them to be. In this case, I would say that anyone has the right, outside of certain summons and government requirements, to keep their silence. CNN is not the FBI, and that means answers are not mandatory.
The difference is that Trump has been spreading lies and using fake news to his advantage for years. He claimed to have knowledge that Obama's birth certificate was fake. For years he spread that lie to attack the president. Now someone has reported something that is relevant to his ability to perform the office to which he has been elected, and he cries foul. Obama hasn't been spreading lies, so if he calls out a media outlet for lying, it isn't hypocritical. How many times did he accuse Clinton of crimes (crooked Hilary)? He can't spread unfounded accusations, then throw a tantrum when someone reports something about him. Especially if they aren't lying.
I discovered this app has a webpage, it organizes the text in an easier to read manner (Probably just because the screen is wider)
Wikileaks is credible, explained by the DKIM, or Domain Keys Identified Mail. After an email has been sent, it can be verified in a way that doctored sources cannot. Also, because it does not report, simply provide information, it cannot be considered a news source, only an information source. Information has no bias.
As for the Trump issue, there is such a thing known as "slander" and "yellow journalism", which can exist by simply adding words like "Claims," and "Unverified". It's much like a loaded question, when you ask somebody a question with leading information. I.e. "Will you trust Assange, the accused pedophile", it doesn't matter if the accusation never pans out, what matters is that it is presented.
Coining the term fake news suggests a network is lying, when it is the individual stories that must be focused on. The unverified part is key, not that they are investigating, as is the point that there is no official statement to be made. So why dedicate so much time to report on nothing? To suggest you received a tip on unsubstantiated information, and will report continuously as no new information arrives to verify. The FBI of course cannot ignore any statements, considering that the President would be an accountable person, however considering the level of proof actually needed to investigate based on claims can be low at times, this is one of those times.
So where is the double standard? I know that if Obama shut down Alex Jones for saying something rumored, unsubstantiated, and continuously reported, there would be no complaints. And so, I must agree with neveralone on principles of free speech. The news can say one thing, the president another, and no news source is required to have information outside of what the public demands or required to have interviews from anyone.
TLDR, if they are reporting the truth, it is that they know nothing and that the claim alone exists. Wikileaks can be verified, and has been. Wikileaks deals in facts, not news. Journalism has slander, and denying journalists of one source or another on the right to speak or keep silent is not unamerican. It is not a pro or anti trump divide, as I doubt Obama would invite breitbart or reuters into interviews.
But to reign in the topic, or at least address if Trump is really attacking the press, let's use a same scenario, same elements. If Trump were to shut down Goldengate, which is being investigated by our best and is unsubstantiated, yet from CNN...?
1. this article has not been shown to be false. it is still being investigated seriously. why is it wrong for the press to tell the public about the investigation and the information they have on it. they did not lie. they did not present it as truth. they reported the facts. this is what the FBI is investigating, here is what we know.
2. you didn't make such an ideological claim when the press was reporting on the wiki leaks data dump on hillary. completely unsubstantiated info from mystery sources.
gee I wonder what is more valid to report, unverified claims that are being taken seriously by our intelligence community and come from reputable sources that have done great work in the past? or a wiki leaks data dump from completely unknown sources.
the double standard and hypocrisy is reaching new levels.
Impressions are just as damning as truth. The story of his lawyer being in the Kremlin was dead wrong, but it leaves an unsavory taste. I do not mind him chastising CNN. The media should not be story-chasers, but truth seekers.
he singled out, mocked, and taunted a reporter for reporting on, with the proper disclaimers, unsubstantiated news (not fake) that was being seriously considered by our own intelligence agencies.
why does he not want information to be released and let the people decide what's true or not?
I mean, that's his exact words regarding the equally unsubstantiated and from much less reliable sources wiki leaks! "I love wiki leaks" "let's release all the information and let the people decide what's true or not"
real or fake is no longer the primary distinction in news. the main factor is if it is pro trump or anti trump. thank you for bringing the worst parts of the Russian system to america.
it's not even a matter of being capable. It's a matter of being accountable to the public. Trump, like every other president is beholden to the people he serves, both those that voted for him and those that didn't. This means he is obligated to answer the inquiries of both pro and opposition press outlets as they work for different sectors of the public. Denying access and worse yet, refusing questions from opposition outlets is akin to saying he is not beholden to members of the opposition and by extension the members of the public they represent.
This, while not tyranny, does border on an attempt to for an autocracy which is in direct opposition to the spirit of the American political system, and thus his actions in this sense are "un-American".
tough questions are definitely needed. without them u won't know if ur president is capable of everything. that's not even getting into freedom of press.
I think he's referring to Trump's rhetoric about kicking the press core out of the west wing, filling press rooms with non-opposition new outlets rather than an independent press. Essentially, the worry is that Trump's rhetoric and actions (refusing to answer questions from opposition outlets) will turn into something like "state-run" media rather than an independent press.
I doubt anyone thinks it will go as far as Russian media or Chinese media, but the worry is that access will be denied to people who genuinely have difficult questions to ask about him and his administration. Whether or not you are a Trump supporter shouldn't matter here, as we all benefit from a free press. I don't want his actions to set a precedence for future administrations either. Could you imagine if Hillary had become elected and started kicking out right leaning media outlets which asked tougher questions?
we are allowed to speak our minds. though if he doesn't have the press on his side he will have problems