Analysis Lizard people, Trump and other non-corona rabbit holes

[larrikin]

Warning: This thread contains statements and assertions that are misleading, disputed or unverified. You should make your own enquiries concerning these matters to reputable news sources. Believe what you read here at your own risk.

Normal rules still apply to this thread - play the ball not the man.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Is that an actual thing and not just an insanely bad typo?

 

[FatPizza]

View attachment 875484
All the democrats right now

All the Republicans right now.

Generalizations are easy.

 

[Dazzler9]

Damn Demerctats. I need a covfefe.

 

[Ishmael_]

How would you feel being a main stream media reporter and finding out all the articles you have written for 3 years on the 'trump Russia collusion ' has been complete BS and your sources from the democrate party have been lying to you the whole time !

You would be pissed at them right ?

Wrong it's trumps fault for exposing the demerctats lies and making your hard work Fake News .

What a bunch of Muppets

The problem with hyper-partisanship is that everyone leaves their critical faculties at the door. I think Trump is completely unfit to be president and his recent Twitter craziness around 'Obamagate' is clearly nonsense, but he does have a point when it comes to this Russian collusion.

The basis for the Russian-Collusion narrative was ultimately nonsense. And people like Rachel Maddow and MSNBC/CNN completely dropped the ball, damaging their own and the media's credibility. The amazing thing is, that so many ex-security officials, most of whom were former republican 'never Trumpers' managed to lead the narrative and Democrats deferred completely to them.

And it chewed up any air time for actual scandals, like what happened in Ukraine or horrific tax cuts that orchestrated the biggest transfer of wealth in generations. Or even the fact that Russia did and is interfering in democratic elections around the world, as is China. But instead of dealing with any of this, the media jumped on the story that sounded like a spy novel and drove ratings through the roof.

 

[Hangover Noir]

The problem with hyper-partisanship is that everyone leaves their critical faculties at the door. I think Trump is completely unfit to be president and his recent Twitter craziness around 'Obamagate' is clearly nonsense, but he does have a point when it comes to this Russian collusion.

The basis for the Russian-Collusion narrative was ultimately nonsense. And people like Rachel Maddow and MSNBC/CNN completely dropped the ball, damaging their own and the media's credibility. The amazing thing is, that so many ex-security officials, most of whom were former republican 'never Trumpers' managed to lead the narrative and Democrats differed completely to them.

And it chewed up any air time for actual scandals, like what happened in Ukraine or horrific tax cuts that orchestrated the biggest transfer of wealth in generations. Or even the fact that Russia did and is interferingBut instead of dealing with any of this, the media jumped on the story that sounded like a spy novel and drove ratings through the roof.

And now they’re dropping the story like a hot potato.
Pulitzers were given out for the fakest of fake news.
The head in sand gif is perfectly appropriate.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

And now they’re dropping the story like a hot potato.
Pulitzers were given out for the fakest of fake news.
The head in sand gif is perfectly appropriate.

Specifically, which Pulitzers do you think were fake news?

 

[Hangover Noir]

Specifically, which Pulitzers do you think were fake news?

Specifically this one: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/staffs-new-york-times-and-washington-post

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

All the Republicans right now.

Generalizations are easy.

Typical lefty playing the racist card .

It's easier to cry racist that be accountable for ones own actions

 

[kranky al]

Typical lefty playing the racist card .

It's easier to cry racist that be accountable for ones own actions

Hmmm.

last i checked the good burghers who carried that symbol in ww2 killed millions in gas chambers.

why would you accept that being associated with your politics?

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

Hmmm.

last i checked the good burghers who carried that symbol in ww2 killed millions in gas chambers.

why would you accept that being associated with your politics?

I'm not a Republican I live in Australia.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Specifically this one: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/staffs-new-york-times-and-washington-post

Well that'll teach me to only look at the investigative reporting and international reporting categories.

But running through the 20 articles that made up that Pulitzer-winning effort, how many actually relate to alleged links between Trump and Russia (as opposed to his dealings with Comey, Flynn etc)?

Of those, do any actually state there was any collusion, other than the connections that have been admitted by Trump's people? E.g. Donny Junior admitted to meeting with a Russian woman who professed to have dirt on Hilary, although she never actually provided any such dirt. Kushner and Sesssions admitted to "accidentally" omitting contacts with Russian officials on their official submissions.

Where are the errors that would justify handing back an award?

 

[kranky al]

Well that'll teach me to only look at the investigative reporting and international reporting categories.

But running through the 20 articles that made up that Pulitzer-winning effort, how many actually relate to alleged links between Trump and Russia (as opposed to his dealings with Comey, Flynn etc)?

Of those, do any actually state there was any collusion, other than the connections that have been admitted by Trump's people? E.g. Donny Junior admitted to meeting with a Russian woman who professed to have dirt on Hilary, although she never actually provided any such dirt. Kushner and Sesssions admitted to "accidentally" omitting contacts with Russian officials on their official submissions.

Where are the errors that would justify handing back an award?

Not supporting herr twitler?

 

[FatPizza]

Typical lefty playing the racist card .

It's easier to cry racist that be accountable for ones own actions

You completely missed the point of my post. But for whatever reason I'm not surprised.

And why are you calling me a lefty?

Either way feel free to keep plugging away with your 'The Democrats are the real bad guys' rhetoric.

 

[FatPizza]

Well that'll teach me to only look at the investigative reporting and international reporting categories.

But running through the 20 articles that made up that Pulitzer-winning effort, how many actually relate to alleged links between Trump and Russia (as opposed to his dealings with Comey, Flynn etc)?

Of those, do any actually state there was any collusion, other than the connections that have been admitted by Trump's people? E.g. Donny Junior admitted to meeting with a Russian woman who professed to have dirt on Hilary, although she never actually provided any such dirt. Kushner and Sesssions admitted to "accidentally" omitting contacts with Russian officials on their official submissions.

Where are the errors that would justify handing back an award?

What people don't seem to realise, is that she was just being sarcastic.

 

[Ishmael_]

Well that'll teach me to only look at the investigative reporting and international reporting categories.

But running through the 20 articles that made up that Pulitzer-winning effort, how many actually relate to alleged links between Trump and Russia (as opposed to his dealings with Comey, Flynn etc)?

Of those, do any actually state there was any collusion, other than the connections that have been admitted by Trump's people? E.g. Donny Junior admitted to meeting with a Russian woman who professed to have dirt on Hilary, although she never actually provided any such dirt. Kushner and Sesssions admitted to "accidentally" omitting contacts with Russian officials on their official submissions.

Where are the errors that would justify handing back an award?

Ignoring some outrageous and very clickable op-ed pieces, print journalism was much better at doing actual reporting and as always the NYT & WaPo do important work. No doubt, Trump's orbit of slimy individuals was easy pickings for an incentivised FBI investigation and good fodder for hot takes.

But the general climate was quite outrageous and made it impossible to discern anything, I know that I struggled. I mean supposedly serious people were positing that Trump could be a foreign plant. Or spruiking the 'Steele' dossier which turned out to contain deliberate Russian misinformation as his network had been compromised.

Looking back, it reminded me of the environment that preceded the Iraq War. Just so much noise and paranoia. Thankfully the stakes weren't the same but ultimately Russia more than met their aims which were to sow discord, inflame partisan tensions and erode trust in the media.

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

You completely missed the point of my post. But for whatever reason I'm not surprised.

And why are you calling me a lefty?

Either way feel free to keep plugging away with your 'The Democrats are the real bad guys' rhetoric.

I have no problem you posting that. I get the point you were making .

I just don't like someone cropping your name out of it and reposting with only my user name on it like I posted it that racist picture.

It's a common fall back of liberals to call people racist to win an argument.

 

[Chad in Vegas]

How would you feel being a main stream media reporter and finding out all the articles you have written for 3 years on the 'trump Russia collusion ' has been complete BS and your sources from the democrate party have been lying to you the whole time !

You would be pissed at them right ?

Wrong it's trumps fault for exposing the demerctats lies and making your hard work Fake News .

What a bunch of Muppets

Next you'll be telling us your Mum doesn't even love big Cox

 

[Seadog]

Specifically this one: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/staffs-new-york-times-and-washington-post

Care to point out which of these stories is false.



For a distinguished example of reporting on national affairs, using any available journalistic tool, Fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000).

Staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post
Share: Twitter Facebook Email

For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)

Staff members from The New York Times and The Washington Post (from left: Maggie Haberman, Jo Becker, Matt Apuzzo, Rosalind Helderman, Tom Hamburger, Ellen Nakashima, Adam Entous, Greg Miller and Mark Mazetti) accept the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting from Columbia University President Lee Bollinger. (Photo: Eileen Barroso/Columbia University)

Winning Work
February 8, 2017

Officials say Flynn discussed sanctions (Washington Post)


February 13, 2017

White House received warning about Flynn (Washington Post)


February 28, 2017

FBI was to pay author of Trump dossier (Washington Post)


March 1, 2017

Sessions spoke twice to Russian envoy (Washington Post)


May 15, 2017

Trump reveals secret intelligence to Russians (Washington Post)


May 22, 2017

President asked intelligence chiefs to deny collusion (Washington Post)


June 14, 2017

Trump’s actions now a focus of Mueller inquiry (Washington Post)


June 22, 2017

Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault

July 31, 2017

Trump crafted son’s statement on Russian contact (Washington Post)


December 13, 2017

Doubting the intelligence, Trump pursues Putin and leaves a Russian threat unchecked (Washington Post)

May 16, 2017

Trump Appealed To Comey To Haunt Inquiry Into Aide (New York Times)

July 10, 2017

Trump’s Son Heard of Link To Moscow Before Meeting (New York Times)


July 11, 2017

Emails Disclose Trump Son's Glee At Russian Offer (New York Times)

December 30, 2017

Unlikely Source Propelled Russian Meddling Inquiry (New York Times)


May 19, 2017

Trump Admitted Dismissal At F.B.I. Eased Pressure (New York Times)


May 11, 2017

President Shifts Rationale For Firing F.B.I. Director, Calling Him a ‘Showboat’ (New York Times)


April 6, 2017

Undisclosed On Forms, Kushner Met 2 Russians (New York Times)


April 22, 2017

In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election (New York Times)

May 17, 2017

Trump Transition Said to Know Of Flynn Inquiry Before Hiring (New York Times)


September 7, 2017

To Sway Vote, Russia Used Army of Fake Americans (New York Times)

 

[Seadog]

In other news Trump gave us another example of his stable genius last night.

“When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn’t do any testing we would have very few cases.”

Why anyone would nail their colors to this f#*king moron's mast is beyond me.

 

[RookiePick]

In other news Trump gave us another example of his stable genius last night.

“When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn’t do any testing we would have very few cases.”

Why anyone would nail their colors to this f#*king moron's mast is beyond me.

It seems to be resonating pretty well with a stack of Vicco's on the main board funnily enough.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

In other news Trump gave us another example of his stable genius last night.

“When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn’t do any testing we would have very few cases.”

Why anyone would nail their colors to this f#*king moron's mast is beyond me.

I bet he tried that line back in the 80s.

“You haven’t got any STDs have you?”

“Well I haven’t been tested for any. So no, I haven’t got any.”

 

[Hangover Noir]

Care to point out which of these stories is false.



For a distinguished example of reporting on national affairs, using any available journalistic tool, Fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000).

Staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post
Share: Twitter Facebook Email

For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)

Staff members from The New York Times and The Washington Post (from left: Maggie Haberman, Jo Becker, Matt Apuzzo, Rosalind Helderman, Tom Hamburger, Ellen Nakashima, Adam Entous, Greg Miller and Mark Mazetti) accept the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting from Columbia University President Lee Bollinger. (Photo: Eileen Barroso/Columbia University)

Winning Work
February 8, 2017

Officials say Flynn discussed sanctions (Washington Post)


February 13, 2017

White House received warning about Flynn (Washington Post)


February 28, 2017

FBI was to pay author of Trump dossier (Washington Post)


March 1, 2017

Sessions spoke twice to Russian envoy (Washington Post)


May 15, 2017

Trump reveals secret intelligence to Russians (Washington Post)


May 22, 2017

President asked intelligence chiefs to deny collusion (Washington Post)


June 14, 2017

Trump’s actions now a focus of Mueller inquiry (Washington Post)


June 22, 2017

Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault

July 31, 2017

Trump crafted son’s statement on Russian contact (Washington Post)


December 13, 2017

Doubting the intelligence, Trump pursues Putin and leaves a Russian threat unchecked (Washington Post)

May 16, 2017

Trump Appealed To Comey To Haunt Inquiry Into Aide (New York Times)

July 10, 2017

Trump’s Son Heard of Link To Moscow Before Meeting (New York Times)


July 11, 2017

Emails Disclose Trump Son's Glee At Russian Offer (New York Times)

December 30, 2017

Unlikely Source Propelled Russian Meddling Inquiry (New York Times)


May 19, 2017

Trump Admitted Dismissal At F.B.I. Eased Pressure (New York Times)


May 11, 2017

President Shifts Rationale For Firing F.B.I. Director, Calling Him a ‘Showboat’ (New York Times)


April 6, 2017

Undisclosed On Forms, Kushner Met 2 Russians (New York Times)


April 22, 2017

In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election (New York Times)

May 17, 2017

Trump Transition Said to Know Of Flynn Inquiry Before Hiring (New York Times)


September 7, 2017

To Sway Vote, Russia Used Army of Fake Americans (New York Times)

I’ll reply against my better judgement because this thread is just a pile-on.

I doubt the sincerity of many on this thread that they are curious enough to read anything that might challenge their worldview.

But just in case you are, start here: https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/all-the-adam-schiff-transcripts-11589326164
There’s a bunch more articles just like that one if you care to look.

Read the transcripts for yourself.

Time and time again, every single one of them (intelligence officials while under oath) says “no evidence of collusion.”

If some f-wit replies with a nazi flag they can go f themselves.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I’ll reply against my better judgement because this thread is just a pile-on.

You managed to reply without actually answering the question.

Which WSJ or NYP articles were wrong, such that would justify handing back a prize?

 

[Hangover Noir]

You managed to reply without actually answering the question.

Which WSJ or NYP articles were wrong, such that would justify handing back a prize?

For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)

What part of “no evidence of collusion” is so hard for you to understand?

“Furthered the nation’s understanding”-
The only thing that has furthered anyone’s understanding is this week’s release of the transcripts.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)

What part of “no evidence of collusion” is so hard for you to understand?

Which articles actually say there was collusion?

Which statements in those 20 articles are demonstrably false?

Or are you just jumping on the phrase “no evidence of collusion” and deciding that completely negates the entirety of 20 lengthy articles on a broad range of topics under a theme of Trump and Russia?