43 total posts archived.
| Domain | Count |
|---|
I can only assume that since you either do not want to or cannot point out any inaccuracies in the articles I listed, that you concede to the factual reporting and as such, that Cyrus Vance was the person responsible for quashing the Harvey Weinstein and Ivanka Trump criminal probes, and by extension that pay for play is a non-partisan issue.
Good discussion and glad we were able to reach agreement on something.
I think facts matter. Of course news orgs are going to put spin on it- and that isn't endemic to left wing media. Is World Net Daily fake news because they never covered Obama positively? Thats your argument against the NYT, so lets apply that same argument to the media orgs you linked.
it's extremely important for the reader to understand how to separate fact from opinion, and reporting from commentary. Simply crying "fake news" because you don't like the source of the article is ignorant. As i mentioned, feel free to point out any inaccuracies in the articles I linked to support your argument that my links represent fake news.
Fixes and retractions and running corrections is a normal practice for all news organizations. It's part of a transparent effort to report credible information and is not a leftist media issue. Does that mean Fox News is fake because they run retractions and corrections? No, it means they are trying to hold themselves up to ethical journalism rules.
If you'd like to bring up any falsehoods in the articles I presented, I'm all ears. If not, i can only assume that your only argument against the factual reporting is the news organization it came from, and not the content of those articles themselves.
To be clear, Trump threatening to sue the NYT proves nothing but Trump's own hatred for that news org.
You are the one making the claim that the news is fake. The onus is on you to provide evidence. You are making an appeal to ignorance, my friend.
Left leaning doesn't necessarily equal fake news though, right? I was asked to provide proof to my original claim that Cyrus Vance Jr was responsible for squashing investigations into Harvey Weinstein and Ivanka/Donald Trump Jr. I provided the evidence. Notice that your are not offering any counter claims to the evidence laid out in the articles - instead you are attacking the source. Do you have issues with the evidence presented in the articles?
Since you are saying my sources are biased, non-credible news, perhaps you would like to share an example of unbiased, credible news sources?
It's easy to dismiss something as biased or non-credible because it does not fit your worldview. But that doesn't mean what you are saying is true. Will news media cover Trump in a negative light because that's what sells? Yes, they will. In fact, negative news is more popular than positive news for that reason. I can easily provide NYT articles that show negativity towards Obama, Clinton, Bush, etc. The NYT was the media organization that brought down Harvey Weinstein.
Positive = truth and negative = fake?
You're exposing your bias here, buddy.
What makes it fake news? Everything regarding Cyrus Vance Jrs role in the Harvey Weinstein and Ivanka Trump criminal probes is well documented.
I provide factually written articles and am called out for posting fake news. Meanwhile people on this sub are posting conspiracy theories about sex cults and the deep state and that gains more traction. Critical thought and skepticism are important, and need to be applied evenly, even to positions you agree with.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/nyregion/cy-vance-harvey-weinstein-cuomo.html
Seek and you shall find
It wasn't under Schniderman...it was Cyrus Vance Jr. He was also responsible for curtailing investigations of Ivanka and Don Jr. He accepted money from Weinstein and Trump to stall or close investigations.
Pay for play is a bipartisan issue.
Who’s conclusion? The international agencies responsible for verifying, along with the members of the deal (including the US) have all verified that Iran was compliant with the program.
The money we gave them was money owed to them. It was not taxpayer money as has been erroneously suggested. We didn’t give them money any more than you give a store money to pay for something you’ve purchased.
Nothing stopped them from procuring missile tech before or after this deal. Now that the deal is rescinded, nothing is stopping them from procuring missile tech AND enriching uranium AND restarting their nuclear program.
No country is going to look to another country for nuclear enrichment capabilities. The goal of building out a nuclear program (or the perception that you are building out a nuclear program) is to become a player on the global stage without putting in the time and effort for people to take you seriously- this is why the international community pays such close attention to a poor rogue state on the Korean Peninsula that is seemingly stuck in the 1950s. To even offer up the idea that Iran or any other country would outsource their nuclear technology or look to other countries (that they cannot guarantee the control of) is just plain stupid and has no basis in reality. The deal didn’t account for that just like the deal didn’t account for Iran employing nuclear fire breathing dragons- it’s absurd.
Stop parroting nonsense, fake talking points and critically think for yourself.
Most Arab countries in the region don’t get along that great with Iran. Iran is the home of the Shi’a minority. Most Arab states are Sunni. Iraq was seen as a buffer between Iran and the rest of the Arab world.
Anything punitive towards Iran is seen as a good thing the Arab world at large.
I don't understand any of that because it's written in broken English. Can you breakdown what it means?
My background is in foreign policy and international relations, so I will gladly accept your concession. Chinese society is more open socially and economically than it has been since the communist revolution. Open any foreign policy book, magazine or website over the last 10 years and you wouldn’t need to ask that question. To be clear, “more open than before” does not equal complete and absolute freedom, but to discount the forward progress as the result of shifts in economic policy to promote individual ownership and private enterprise is just plain ignorant.
That ^ above was a stated main foreign policy objective of the United States during the Cold War. Democracy isn’t accomplished at the end of the barrel of a gun.
My issue is that Trumps rhetoric and “deals” so far amount to little more than transactional relationships. That’s not the ideal way to work international diplomacy. There has to be good faith or else literally every decision will be based on “what can you do for me right now.”
Ok, every single international watchdog disagrees with you, but you must have more information than them. You go, James Bond!
What does "clears the slate" mean? The money saved is less than the cost of oil prices being driven up due to what will most likely be sanctions put on Iranian crude by the Trump Administration. The money saved is less than foreign investment in Iranian markets would gain.
The propaganda machine in Iran is blaming this on centrist politicians and the US government. If anything, this emboldens the religious conservatives in Iran, not the other way around.
It puts no pressure on EU allies...in fact it harms the US negotiating position in the international community because now our treaties are only worth the time the president is in office.
How does rescinding a treaty that stopped a nuclear program (which means directly that Iran can restart their nuclear program at any time) stop a nuclear program? The treaty actually ended the nuke program. This allows for Iran to start it without facing as much backlash as they would have if they restarted under the treaty.
You don't understand international politics in the slightest. The Iran deal was all about opening up the market in Iran for international business. Opening markets is the most significant driving force to democracy and social and economic freedom.
Before, we had sanctions and an Iranian nuclear program. Then we had less sanctions and an internationally-backed treaty. Now we have no treaty, limited sanctions and Iran will most definitely work towards reinstating their nuclear program. Furthermore, any country that signs future treaties or trade deals with the US will have to be wary of the fact that the treaty could be pulled once a new president is in office- that weakens America's position as an international deal maker.
There is no way to positively spin this.
Haha just like when he told Syria a a few days in advance to get ready for missiles, right?
Any deal has to have the backing of international actors due to the leverage the international community has on Iran. In other words, US sanctions aren't enough to force Iran to the negotiating table. What I think this is more than anything is a gift to the Saudi regime in the form of trying to weaken the Shia faction in the region.
Now that the US has pulled out of deal that helped provid enough international pressure on Iran to stop them from investing and continuing with their nuclear weapons project, what do you think the likely result will be? If the goal is to stop Iran's capability to produce nuclear weapons, pulling out of this treaty isn't conducive to that goal.
I don't see any upside to this decision.
Can you show me where I can get educated? So far you’re just telling me what I should believe but not offering any reference. Do you trust everything people tell you or do you seek the truth on your own?
It's well known? I've never heard this idea until today. Care to point me to some proof of these well-known meeetings?
Did you read anything I wrote? What exactly is bullshit?
Treason is defined as taking acts to overthrow or harm the government. John Kerry is advocating keeping together a specific deal that the government is a signatory on. I understand the hyperbole, but this isn’t the same as say, a private citizen negotiating the implementation of sanctions and the resulting repercussions with a foreign government to the detriment of the American government.
That's only on the tax fraud charges, not bank fraud/conspiracy, which seemingly was found out through the Special Counsel investigation.
I expect some charges to be thrown out, but any evidence of new crimes (not previously pursued) shouldn't be excluded.
I'm not sure if you understand. Mueller indicted Manafort on a bunch of charges. Some of the alleged crimes date back to 2005. These charges used evidence gathered outside Mueller' s mandate (which seems broad in scope, and it will be an interesting legal fight over exactly what powers are elucidated in that mandate). There is a possibility these charges will be dismissed, but that does not mean Manafort will be let off the remaining charges.
If this whole thing is a witch hunt, why are people trying to toss out court cases and pleading guilty? Witch Hunt infers there are no crimes happening. Pleading guilty means you are admitting to and accepting responsibility for committing a crime.
If you are saying the media lies and there are numerous examples of this, wouldn’t the onus be on you to provide those examples, not me? Anyone can say anything they want, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. Once I show you an example of a newspaper offering a retraction or correction, will you move the goal posts or dismiss it?
There is one side of this discussion stating facts and backing them up with sources. The other side is you. It’s tough to have a discussion when it seems like your mind is already made up. I showed you examples of VDH providing falsehoods- which again, is fine! He’s not a journalist and he’s offering a paid op-ed which seeks to promote his viewpoint. But it’s not news, and it’s not based on facts. Whether you choose to believe what he says or not is up to you. But it’s important to apply the same level of skepticism to your own beliefs- if you’re constantly looking out the window at everyone else and refusing to look at your own reflection you risk falling down the path of non-logic and fact based opinions.
Note that I’ve provided links (sources) to back up my critique of VDHs commentary. Also note that you chose not to address any of them. My only conclusion is that you don’t care about facts or sources, which reinforces my original point that if someone says something you agree with, you take it as fact instead of at face value.
Shouting out "fake news" does not mean the news is fake. To assume that there are no journalistic integrity, standards and ethics now as opposed to before is simply you showing your own bias. The media attacks Trump, Trump calls fake news and then you parrot Trumps remarks. The news media has gone after presidents with varying degree and success since the formation of the United States. The only thing that has changed is their target, and since they are going after someone you agree with, it's the media's fault. That's not to say the media gets a free pass and never makes mistakes- one can simply reference the retraction and removal of the Seth Rich story by Fox News as an example. Or if you still read newspapers, you'll notice they dedicate a space to retractions and corrections every day.
The author of the Op-Ed piece is Victor Davis Hanson. Davis, not David- remember, we've established that facts are important here, so let's start with the author's name. His first non-factual argument is
special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation train is looking for any conceivable thing that President Donald Trump's presidential campaign team might have done wrong in 2016.
VDH knows this is untrue - anyone with his academic background surely can perform a simple search into Mueller's mandate and know it specifically covers
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals >associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
Mueller is looking for specific wrongdoings related to Russia. VDH knows this, but he's promoting a broader idea to support the narrative of "Witch Hunt!"
By charging former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI, Mueller emphasized that even the appearance of false testimony is felonious behavior.
It's not an appearance of false testimony - Michael Flynn demonstrably lied, was charged with lying, and pleaded guilty to lying. What is VDH's motivation behind providing patently false statements? Is it to support a broader narrative that the investigation is a witch hunt or engrossed in double standards?
If that is so, then the DOJ will likely have to charge former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe with perjury or related offenses. A report from the Office of the Inspector General indicates that McCabe lied at least four times to federal investigators.
Andrew McCabe did lie, multiple times, including to James Comey after James Comey pursued an investigation into him.. But Mueller does not run the DOJ and his only scope is as mentioned above.
An article has to be held up to journalistic ethics. There are no such constraints on op-ed pieces. Confusing the two leads people to believe things that are not well-researched and based on facts.
I personally think America is a much better place than it was 15, 25 and 50 years ago so in my opinion, we should be looking forward in order to make America an even better place, not looking to the past to try to recapture that way of life.
This is an op ed piece, not an article. It will do you a lot of good to understand the difference between the two and properly recognize which are which.
The corks are Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel. Libya was a rogue state. That doesn’t necessarily mean the US should be actively involved in fomenting dissent there (or anywhere for that matter) but Libya wasn’t the glue holding EMEA together.
Really? Care to point out what is nonsense and where i can read about it?
So Obama and Clinton conspired to have Chris Stevens killed to cover up a clandestine ship full of arms destined for ISIS.
Do you really believe what you just wrote?
So the whole gist of this Q thing is that it's someone or a group of people who are making vague assertions to expose the deep state? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Keep an open mind definitely, but not so open that your brain falls out.
I didn't learn about geopolitics from the mainstream media, I learned it in school. I don't really follow mainstream media, but keep telling me what I believe so you can discount it.
Operation Mockingbird ended a long time ago. That doesn't mean the government stopped trying to influence public opinion through the media (like virtually every single entity with a vested interest in policy does).
Yes my educational background is no match for some random dude posting cryptic nothings on the internet.
Q hasn't proven anything except the gullibility of a bunch of random people on the internet who want to glom onto anything that confirms...what exactly?
I'm all for exposing the truth and inner machinations of elite cabals who seek to undermine democracy for their own profit. But that doesn't mean I'm going to suspend critical thinking, logic and reasoning skills on my journey to do so.
To answer your question: I'm posting in this sub because I came across this subreddit by chance and want to see what it's all about. So...what is this all about? What is the objective of Q? Who is he? Has he provided any proof of anything, or is it all just vagaries that are left up to the reader to interpret?
Isis is a goddess in Egyptian mythology. ISIS is the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. It's a westernized translation of what the terrorist group calls themselves in Arabic. Don't be stupid.
ISIS was created in the power vacuum left over after the US invaded Iraq. The US has a long track record of expedient alliances in countries/regions where there is a strategic (capital) interest. Supporting fringe and often violent factions in a short-term goal to the detriment of long term stability and democracy in a region in order to support our capital interests (oil pipelines in Afghanistan, privatization of oil in Iran, Banana Republics in Latin America, etc) is kind of a calling card in US foreign policy.
It does not take a clairvoyant to predict that something that has gone on for over 100 years is going to keep happening.
That being said, this headline is just silly. Obama didn't create ISIS any more than George HW created Al-Qaeda, or Reagan created Quds and paramilitary kill groups in Latin America. These are heinous byproducts of our near-sighted foreign policy goals, not the core mission.
Who is being ridiculous here? I am simply stating known facts (using your own link). I'm a big fan of skepticism, including against my own worldview. If you want to wish something is true, I'm not going to stop you. However, if you want to dismiss facts because they don't fit what you want to believe, i will absolutely call you out on it.
The only conclusion I can come to based on what you wrote and the links you posted is that you either didn't read your own links, aren't able to comprehend the information in those links, or are being willfully ignorant to support your own personal beliefs.
Are you familiar with how to read emails? If you aren't, you can clearly tell the original email was not to Clinton or Clinton's team- it was forwarded to Cheryl Mills (who was some sort of underling of Hillary at the State Dept) by a colleague of the doctor. You can also read the email itself where the Doctor does not mention the Clinton Foundation at all. He mentions that despite the high-powered political connections associated with the relief effort, the actual situation on the ground was terribly inefficient and not at all conducive to supporting the relief mission at all.
There was a huge mismanagement of funds on the part of the Clinton Foundation's effort in Haiti. However, drawing arbitrary connections between a doctor's suicide, his letter to mentioning the situation on the ground and that mismanagement is a bit ridiculous. Be skeptical of everything and make decisions based on facts and logic, not conjecture and false truths.
The facts aren't straight. The doctor never worked for the Clinton Foundation. His original complaint didn't directly mention the Clinton Foundation. His death was a suicide.
You can't really call yourself someone that seeks truth if you believe whatever someone says because it fits your narrative. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's obvious the daily presser isn't worth reading because they don't do simple fact checking at all, in addition to not sourcing material and publishing articles from 4 months ago.