@thirdworldtaxi no edits.
Stay on topic as well, both of you, cheers!
I keep wondering about this, too. It seems easy enough - get on some kind of Russian business directory and put in Trump. You know his name is all over whatever he owns.
Exactly; as others have pointed out the BBC is (as a direct result of Murdoch-funded pressure to privatise them) extremely conservative about reporting things that are potentially false. All it takes is one lawsuit and suddenly the rest of the right-wing press in the UK would destroy their mandate, so they naturally err on the side of (small c) conservatism.
I don’t like or trust the BBC as a news source particularly but they are one of very, very few news organisations where the pressure to make sure what they say is legally defensible overrides pretty much every other concern. If the BBC is saying that there are more tapes and more evidence of corruption, I’m willing to take their word for it, for the time being at least.
Busy, busy, busy.
but a great chance to exercise grace and humility in the face of a proven false accusation, and retract it the way a reputable source would take it back.
Since we’re talking about “decisions, intelligence, good faith, and belief” here, it seems a reasonable thing to wonder.
Yep, I made a mistake. Looked bad and realized I looked at the wrong post. Apologies for the accusation, everything else I said stands.
was the mistake, do you think, in your reading or your accusing? Because only one was offensive, or said out loud.
I ask because it’s fantastic to apologize to yourself for your own misunderstanding, but you spoke a slander against me and while claiming it was vice versa, and that isn’t a reading error.
You’re making a lot of accusations here, and many of them seem as well informed as that one, which leads to the pushback, by the way. Not your brilliant points, but rather the buckshot approach.
Still, despite [Chaffinator's] insistence that he won’t back down from challenging the Trump administration, he called Democrats’ concerns over Trump’s sprawling business interests ”premature at best.”
That makes me so angry I could…
How does that work?
I was/am willing to accept your unwillingness to elaborate on how you decide which intelligence briefings to believe, as it is relevant to this post and topic. Not really into being called ‘a disruptive joker’ (and your request that I be banned) or an implication that I somehow lied on purpose about something pretty much meaningless (when I apologized and said it was a mistake). Sorry to @Falcor for getting into a spat over it. So go ahead and have the last word, maybe use it to answer the question that started all this. I won’t post in this thread anymore.
My opinion of him has been and continues to be that he’s a very clever small-L libertarian hacker who also holds himself in extremely high regard. I suspect he developed Wikileaks as a tool he wanted to use to exempt himself from the rules and norms of Western society while also demonstrating to the world how smart he was.
Whatever grandiose claims he makes, in the end he’s only on one team: his own. For a decade that worked out for liberals and progressives.
Then Clinton supported the case for his extradition to Sweden (which he correctly assumed would result in his further extradition to the U.S.) and he started engaging in false equivalencies between her and #nextpresident. The Russians saw their opportunity for a conduit and took it.
Right? The horse has left the damn barn!
Yeah, but we really need to worry about how rigorous the information in this report is verified. And just releasing the leaked report with the tags that it is unverifiable is not enough, this is the kind of thing that no one should be allowed to do. After all, the public shouldn’t trust the political ambitions of intelligence angencies; they need to be placing their full trust in private organizations founded to take on the government, after a if they are taking on the government they cannot has political biases of their own. A leak like this must be contained and controlled and only alluded to without ever seeing the body of it.
It’s important to hold it in as much as possible since a leak would make a serious mess.
More interesting news.
She’s just there because she was in the neighborhood and desired a nice Trump Steak.
You observed my willingness to elaborate on what I decided about your briefings, on this subject, and trust them pretty much not at all, was my point. Sorry if that was too oblique to pick up on.
I don’t find your contributions (retracted and otherwise) to be relevant to this topic as regards good faith, except in the sense of someone behaving as an object example of what they’re complaining about, which is so Trump it pains me.
or an implication that I somehow lied on purpose about something pretty much meaningless
Your accusation, previously, of the same about me, is noted, with an ironic nod. Again, I hope tomorrow is a better day for you. In actual good faith I hope you read more clearly tomorrow and speak more carefully.
Sheesh.
Please?
More that the GOP (or at least Trump) like him now… but yes, from what I understand both parties got hacked, and only the DNC stuff got leaked and Assange pushed it hard.
I mean, he helped found the organization, so there’s that.
[ETA] with regards to the DNC trusting the CIA, do you think there was ever a time when that wasn’t true? Meaning from the party down, not individuals within the party?
