El Presidente Trump

I appreciate you're concerned about it and yeah, you're right to be. The reliability of the media has shown serious feet of clay in the last while.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

It's related because imo you shouldn't believe everything that's printed as fact, unless it's shown as such. Everything is pushed one way or another for an agenda. I've worked in networking for years and I find it very hard to believe if an attack did happen, any evidence linking Putin or the Kremlin to it would show up, they wouldn't be that stupid to use IP addresses from Russia let alone their buildings for a start. It would be done covertly probably from another country, such that it's done anomalously. Wikileaks has denied Russia gave them emails, would they risk their entire reputation if it was true? Maybe, we don't know, but it's something to consider.

How do you define "shown as such" though? I mean, what constitutes proof? Putin's obviously going to say they didn't and hell, maybe they're telling the truth, although -someone- did, that's beyond questioning, and so far the CIA reckon it is Russia.

Actually, I made an error above, I was thinking Comey was CIA, not FBI. So at the moment, afaik, CIA is comparatively blameless so far.

If anything we've seen this election utter corruption inside the US government, the doj emailing and colluding with Hillary before her congress hearings telling her what they're going to ask her, Bill Clinton meeting with AG Loretta Lynch in the back of a plane, the collusion between the MSM and the DNC doing everything they could to get Hillary elected.

Yeah, we've seen the dirty side of politics, no question about that. The DOJ thing, as far as we know, happened once and there were repercussions. It absolutely shouldn't have happened at all, mind, but at least it was caught out and smacked down. I can't say much about the other two, but there was also the Pam Bondi business on the other side of the equation. This doesn't excuse anything, mind, just reiterating that there's reason so few people trust any sources at the moment.

I just find it very hard to believe what the governments stance is on certain things when I know it's rotten to the core and working side by side with major banks and elites. The FBI was manipulated so I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the CIA could push a false narrative or take a leap of faith to continue this disruption post election.

I am unsure what the benefit would be of it though. I think until it's proven as a false narrative (and don't ask me how it would be, I'm afraid) I have to go with it as the answer that fits Occam's Razor best. It may be disproved by subsequent information, but for now, anything else requires too many assumptions, I think.

I get your perspective too and maybe it's the more logical one and the easiest one to go with. A year ago I would have been the same, and that's not to say it's wrong, I'm trying to say that after seeing all the corruption and lies that were exposed by email leaks I've started to question things. I'm happy to agree to disagree until more info comes out.

I think we've all been questionings things, yeah! Not least how the fcuk are countries run if there's what appears to be a pack of five-year-olds running the place!

ECO_Mental wrote: »

this coming from some one who literally put a link up from the " World Socialist Web Site" only 30mins before this post..

Embarrassing

Look, in the interests of fairness, when absolutely debunking a publication, it may be best to point out where they've been wrong and why it's a bad source. Right now, every source can be debunked (fairly or not) by someone who regards it as partisan. The only way for that argument not to fall into complete disrepute is if it's used fairly with examples and evidence.

I'm inclined to lean towards it probably being full of **** too, but in the interests of fairness...

Deleted User wrote: »

How on Earth could you say that Wikileaks isn't a good source? It's an absolutely perfect source.

Denial of course. I often enjoy discussing the emails with people on the left, because at least it's a discussion and they're open to reality even if we don't agree on the outcome.

I've given him the actual email and attachment and he still refutes it. It's amazing how the media can brainwash certain folk.

I am a bit dubious of Wikileaks, mind, partly because Assange appears to be losing his mind due to isolation and partly because it's gone very rapidly from being a truth-will-out sort of thing, something aimed to help whistleblowers and other people who might be under threat, to a very partisan and not altogether honest site that may or may not produce anything, but certainly appears to be aiming for a specific narrative. If they'd been releasing things from both sides, I'd be less dubious of them. But yer man seems fixiated.

Sorry but claiming Wikileaks might not be legit is where I draw the line as far as any discussion goes. Saying they favour one side I can get on board with, but even then it's only speculation as we don't know what information they have.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

He is spot on actually.

Wikileaks does have legit proof/documents/emails/... from political leaders etc. from all over the world, but they seem to go out of their way to only release those that fit specific narratives.

Their bias should absolutely be called into question, as it should with everyone else. Putting them on a pedestal that is exempt from any critical thought helps nobody.

Thanks, that is the point I was getting at. Thing is, sources are important. I'm Dubious of certain sources* that appear to be determined to push one narrative at the expense of other issues and facts. This does not mean that any article about Clinton needs to also refer to Trump being an asshat, the meaning of bias as a word is being hopelessly lost this year, nor does it mean that "equal time" has to be given to both sides of a story, especially when one is patently bollocks (evolution, vaccination and climate change comes under that heading), but it does mean that if a site sets itself up as being completely impartial and then start meddling in elections by collecting lots of data and releasing bits that look bad for one side in particular, it is time to be a tad suspicious of what's going on.

I feel bad for Assange (yes, that dread word again!), but from bits I've read about him, he's not coping well with his isolation and justified paranoia. He appears to be fixiated on the political narrative he's going for at the expense of honesty and at the expense of the ideology behind his website. And that is a real shame, even if I never 100% agreed with Wikileaks to begin with.

*Huffpost and Breitbart being two, although I'm relieved that I can read Huffpost and mentally mark where I don't feel they are being honest in a certain perspective. I'm sure I don't catch all of them, but at least it suggests to me that I'm not being entirely sucked in to one or another point of view. I rather avoid both sources, tbh.