'Trump dossier' on Russia links now part of special counsel's probe - sources

[riclag]

13 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Not getting into an argument but I have to disagree with the short sections, if I was referring to those, I would have said so. I am talking about panel discussions and they don't short them, believe me.  Now how, given the numerous panels and talks they've had in the past two years, do you expect me to locate specifics?  And please Craig, I do not have to post anything, it is not a requirement for one's contribution.

 

Not being rude but can either accept what I say or dismiss it, it's up to you, as I have no intention of searching for hours in order to sustain what I've stated.  If you are as knowledgeable as your posts suggest than you would know very well what I have stated is true, not made up, gets me nowhere to fabricate anything. 

 At times it's frustrating  to post links to talking point's because the opposing person will only dispute and reject it.I can't tell you how many times my sources were tagged as "fringe".

[craigt3365]

17 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Not getting into an argument but I have to disagree with the short sections, if I was referring to those, I would have said so. I am talking about panel discussions and they don't short them, believe me.  Now how, given the numerous panels and talks they've had in the past two years, do you expect me to locate specifics?  And please Craig, I do not have to post anything, it is not a requirement for one's contribution.

 

Not being rude but can either accept what I say or dismiss it, it's up to you, as I have no intention of searching for hours in order to sustain what I've stated.  If you are as knowledgeable as your posts suggest than you would know very well what I have stated is true, not made up, gets me nowhere to fabricate anything. 

Unless you can show an example. I'll disagree that 90% of the reports about Trump are misleading. 

[Srikcir]

13 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

I am talking about panel discussions and they don't short them

I do frequently see that prior to panel discussions regarding a political topic, the media moderator does play relevant direct comments from people such as Trump whether it be in the form of tweets, emails, video or 3rd party witnesses. Whether the panel members choose to reflect on such "shorts" is up to them.

[Si Thea01]

Just now, riclag said:

 At times it's frustrating  to post links to talking point's because the opposing person will only dispute and reject it.I can't tell you how many times my sources were tagged as "fringe".

That's exactly why I have no intention of wasting hours looking for something that I know many on here would already be aware of.

[Si Thea01]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

Unless you can show an example. I'll disagree that 90% of the reports about Trump are misleading. 

Craig, please.  Unless I do this, unless I do that.  I thought this was an open forum where one was free to discuss without someone telling another what he must or must not do to prove their point.  As I said, you have the right to agree or disagree, and yet you tell me I must spend my time just to satisfy your expectations. 

 

Doesn't work that way mate.  You have your opinion, I posted facts, again, I am truly sorry that it does not meet your expectations or you cannot accept that certain things may occur that you are not aware of.  But as I said, with your knowledge I doubt by 99 percent that you are not aware of what I stated.

[Si Thea01]

11 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

I do frequently see that prior to panel discussions regarding a political topic, the media moderator does play relevant direct comments from people such as Trump whether it be in the form of tweets, emails, video or 3rd party witnesses. Whether the panel members choose to reflect on such "shorts" is up to them.

I was speaking directly about the way the panel members react, not what the anchor chooses to discuss or short for specific purposes.  Of course I've seen them too, I am not blind but when they do it is used to fire up the panel and of course what they choose to reflect upon is up to them but you know as well as I do how they comment, don't you? I'd say you would even know on what side of the fence they sit. 

 

Now, can you explain why CNN choose to have panel members 6 to 1, 6 to 0, 4 to 0, 4 to 1,  2 to 0  against whenever they discuss anything Trump and his administration?  Sometimes, they actually allow pro Trump commentators on but recently have sacked two, one was Geoffrey, cannot think of his surname and a female. forget her name as well but seeing you appear to be an avid CNN watcher, you would know who I am referring to.

[Scott]

The topic is about the dossier on Russia.   Stay on topic.   Enough with the constant complaining about sources.  

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

No, didn't hear that so can't really comment.  The only reason I brought up the lack of empathy bit was because CNN had to bring in their usual panel who glorify in giving it to him. You can see the glee in the face as they try to outdo each other.   If they could get away with patting each other on the back or giving each other a standing ovation, I think they would.

 

Some may be reporting accurately but unfortunately, I only get one source, and they lever it 5 to 1 against on most occasions or when they are running short they get it 4 to 0 or 2 to 0 against.  At least on here those who have opposing opinions can get a say, even if they are howled down by a few.  So not totally biased.  As for him being a divider, he may  be, he may not be, only time will tell.  IMO.    

Your only source of news is CNN?  You do realize you can access numerous reputable news sites on the internet, don't you?

 

Also, panel discussions are video editorials, and often incoherent editorials.  I don't pay attention to them, I pay attention to Trump's clueless words and actions and his lack of accomplishments.  In view of what he wants to accomplish, I'm relieved that he has accomplished so little. 

 

I also pay attention to evidence of an concerted, well organized effort by Russia to influence the election.  If this is not investigated and corrective action taken, Russia will be choosing our "elected" officials in the future.

Edited October 8, 2017 by heybruce

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

I think I can see where you stand but as an outsider, if he were to be impeached and gotten rid of, who would you have replace him?  And would you be happy with that choice? Just asking as there are so many calls to impeach the man and get rid of him but no one has said who they would have replace him and that they would be satisfied with that choice.  Of course this is all hypothetical but I'd bet there would be just as many grumblers.

Currently he would be replaced by VP Pence.  I don't like Pence or his politics, but I trust him with the nuclear codes much more than Trump.

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Your only source of news is CNN?  You do realize you can access numerous reputable news sites on the internet, don't you?

 

Also, panel discussions are video editorials, and often incoherent editorials.  I don't pay attention to them, I pay attention to Trump's clueless words and actions and his lack of accomplishments.  In view of what he wants to accomplish, I'm relieved that he has accomplished so little. 

 

I also pay attention to evidence of an concerted, well organized effort by Russia to influence the election.  If this is not investigated and corrective action taken, Russia will be choosing our "elected" officials in the future.

Thank you for your informative response.  I thought the ways things were progressing in the USA, it had already been proven that the Russians had interfered in such a way during the last election it gave rise to Mr Trump being elected. I must have misunderstood.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Si Thea01

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Currently he would be replaced by VP Pence.  I don't like Pence or his politics, but I trust him with the nuclear codes much more than Trump.

Thank but still a lot of dislikes I see.

[heybruce]

21 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

Thank you for your informative response.  I thought the ways things were progressing in the USA, it had already been proven that the Russians had interfered in such a way during the last election it gave rise to Mr Trump being elected. I must have misunderstood.

It has been proven the Russian's attempted to influence the elections.  Whether the Russian attempts were enough to change the outcome of the elections can not be proven, though it is widely suspected. 

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It has been proven the Russian's attempted to influence the elections.  Whether the Russian attempts were enough to change the outcome of the elections can not be proven, though it is widely suspected. 

I was initially skeptical whether Russia influenced the elections or not.  Now?  I'm almost certain.  Considering what we now know.  And how close the election was.

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

It has been proven the Russian's attempted to influence the elections.  Whether the Russian attempts were enough to change the outcome of the elections can not be proven, though it is widely suspected. 

 

Can you tell me what was actually done  in the attempt to influence the elections?  According to government sources, in a number of states, those who looks after the computers etc., don't know their names, that there was never any actual hacking or votes changed. Therefore, who or what was influenced?  So, with the different responses I am really confused.

 

Some say the elections were influenced, you say it was proven that an attempt was made to influence, so please help me understand what was done; was there an actual influence of the elections, or was only an attempt made?

 

An attempt is suggesting that nothing occurred because it does not equate to success whilst something being suspected also means nothing, especially when you're saying that the latter cannot be proven. Evidence is needed to prove something and here we are almost one year on and nothing yet.   

[heybruce]

38 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Can you tell me what was actually done  in the attempt to influence the elections?  According to government sources, in a number of states, those who looks after the computers etc., don't know their names, that there was never any actual hacking or votes changed. Therefore, who or what was influenced?  So, with the different responses I am really confused.

 

Some say the elections were influenced, you say it was proven that an attempt was made to influence, so please help me understand what was done; was there an actual influence of the elections, or was only an attempt made?

 

An attempt is suggesting that nothing occurred because it does not equate to success whilst something being suspected also means nothing, especially when you're saying that the latter cannot be proven. Evidence is needed to prove something and here we are almost one year on and nothing yet.   

"Can you tell me what was actually done  in the attempt to influence the elections? "

 

Force feeding knowledge to the willfully ignorant. Why do I bother?

 

http://fortune.com/2017/10/04/trump-russia-facebook-ads-michigan-wisconsin-swing/

http://www.businessinsider.com/fake-news-and-propaganda-targeted-swing-states-before-election-2017-9

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/09/russia-targeted-swing-states-with-trump-friendly-fake-news/

[Si Thea01]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"Can you tell me what was actually done  in the attempt to influence the elections? "

 

Force feeding knowledge to the willfully ignorant. Why do I bother?

 

http://fortune.com/2017/10/04/trump-russia-facebook-ads-michigan-wisconsin-swing/

http://www.businessinsider.com/fake-news-and-propaganda-targeted-swing-states-before-election-2017-9

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/09/russia-targeted-swing-states-with-trump-friendly-fake-news/

Thanks for the civil response.  Does it make you feel good when you get  personal?  But you did bother didn't you?

[craigt3365]

Just now, Si Thea01 said:

Thanks for the civil response.  Does it make you feel good when you get  personal?  But you did bother didn't you?

Did you read his links?  Definitely worth a read.

[Si Thea01]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Did you read his links?  Definitely worth a read.

I will when I have time seeing he said he didn't know why he bothered yet he did.  I will at least show him some courtesy, something he finds difficult to show me with his crude remarks.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Si Thea01

[heybruce]

28 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Thanks for the civil response.  Does it make you feel good when you get  personal?  But you did bother didn't you?

You asked for information that is common knowledge among those who make a small effort to inform themselves on this topic.  Instead of requesting that others spoon-feed you information, why don't you make the effort to inform yourself?