Trump - Russian connections....FAR DEEPER than anyone ever imagined

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: UKTruth
Allegations need to be proven. We've already covered that.

What do you think the intelligence agencies are doing? Sitting around chatting while having tea?

My position in calling the document fake is perfectly valid as it is not a requirement to prove an allegation false. ... However, you were wrong to associate my label of fake news on this document as something I need to prove.

LOL. Fake isn't the word you're looking for. The words you're looking for "IS NOT PROVEN BUT CURRENTLY BEING INVESTIGATED." That is what MI6, GCHQ, and all the other three letter agencies are doing right now because the sources have proven to be reliable. Fake means it has already been vetted and proven to be BS. So. Wrong. Bzzzt. Try again.

I do not know what the intelligence agencies are doing, and it is not relevant.
Once again, you do not get to define what fake news is. There has been no agreed upon definition and it is being used in various ways by different people. My position is that the document is fake, something I do not need to prove.
I will await evidence before I consider changing my position on a set of allegations that so far contain no proof.

Further, the source has not been vetted and proven to be reliable. In fact experienced US intelligence officials are saying the source is not clear, questioning whether it was even Mr Steele who is the author.

a reply to: Kettu

What exactly has the IC said about Hillary?

They seemed pretty supportive of her, why should I trust them on that assessment?

I do like consistency.

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Fake = not real. People don't seem to understand this.

There is a difference between "unverified" and "currently being investigated" and "fake".

Calling something that is still being looked into "fake" is a knee-jerk reaction by scared people.

It's a convenient way to dismiss an argument by people who have nothing themselves to argue with. It's a way to minimize, dismiss, and marginalize something.

Or one could also say that 'fake news' is a label applied to news that is pushing a narrative that is false, misrepresenting context and some inconvenient facts to the intended agenda. There is no agreed definition.

It seems to me that the liberal media created this term and it is they who are now scared because it is not being used in the way they intended. That's a shame for them. Poor CNN.

a reply to: UKTruth

It's a shame you knowingly use the term 'fake news' falsely.

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: UKTruth

You can't sense my horn? Well, it's there and that's all the proof I feel comfortable giving. If you choose not to accept it, then you're in the wrong. I do have a unicorn horn and that is my reality I choose to believe and live in.

That's the thing - this is the world we are now existing in. "Proof" is never good enough to someone who doesn't want to believe something.

Jesus Christ himself could come riding upon a white horse in the sky, declaring Trump is satan incarnate - with the voice of God himself booming overhead worldwide...people would still claim it's "not proof of anything".

No, unfortunately you would need to prove your claim, so I am justified in calling it fake until you do.
It really is a simple and effective system.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Woah.

Mind = blown.

That's pretty meta dude. Fake news being used fakely.

Wait, is "fakely" even a real word, or is it a fake word?

A fake word being used to describe fake news being used in a fake way...

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: UKTruth

It's a shame you knowingly use the term 'fake news' falsely.

If there is something that is proven to be true that I am calling fake, then you'd have a point.
The only way of proving that I am using the term 'fake news' falsely is to provide evidence.

By definition, news which stands for north east west south must be facts. Anything not verified as facts is fake news.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Once again, you do not get to define what fake news is. There has been no agreed upon definition and it is being used in various ways by different people.

And guess what, you don't get to redefine words that have been in existence for over two centuries.

Fake (adj):
3. not true or real: meant to look real or genuine but not real or genuine

News (n):
1. a report of a recent event; intelligence; information:
2. the presentation of a report on recent or new events in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television.
3. such reports taken collectively; information reported

Now put the two together.

Fake news is legitimately fake news. Not biased news. Not fast loose hard biased twisting of facts smothered under opinions.

See what that means now?

Or are you still having a hard time understanding the English language?

originally posted by: DonaldJohnTrump
By definition, news which stands for north east west south must be facts. Anything not verified as facts is fake news.

Who decides what is a "fact" thought?

Is there a "fact God" who decides that for everyone?

Some people think the Earth is flat, and won't listen to anyone else that it's round. Maybe they're right? Maybe we all believe a lie and the Earth isn't round. We take that "fact" for granted, don't we?

It all becomes highly abstract when you think about it.

"Fact" simply in the end means the general consensus of the majority. Whatever the majority of the people believe is true, becomes fact.

The sky is blue, that's a "fact", right? But...the sky is only blue because we all agree to call the sky blue.

This is why the information war is so important. The more people you can convince, the more legitimate your "facts" become.

In my opinion, the confusion over the term 'fake news' falls upon the MSM. They attempted to equate 'conspiracy theory' with 'fake news', it blew up in their face since the English language is malleable and definitions change over time. Fake news used to mean a story that wasn't real, it now has been mashed with 'conspiracy theory' and 'information someone doesn't want to believe'.

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: UKTruth
Once again, you do not get to define what fake news is. There has been no agreed upon definition and it is being used in various ways by different people.

And guess what, you don't get to redefine words that have been in existence for over two centuries.

Fake (adj):
3. not true or real: meant to look real or genuine but not real or genuine

News (n):
1. a report of a recent event; intelligence; information:
2. the presentation of a report on recent or new events in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television.
3. such reports taken collectively; information reported

Now put the two together.

Fake news is legitimately fake news. Not biased news. Not fast loose hard biased twisting of facts smothered under opinions.

See what that means now?

Or are you still having a hard time understanding the English language?

Yes, lets put them together:

a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: (NEWS) that is meant to look real or genuine but not real or genuine (FAKE)

i.e. FAKE NEWS

So, there is no change to the English language required.

We can keep playing if you like, but the fact remains, you need to prove your allegations by providing evidence.
When you have some, please do share.

a reply to: face23785

Yeah, well it didn't exactly take a genius to know that Clinton was doing illegal stuff though now did it.

I'm pretty sure other than a few of her most loyal supporters the rest of the planet knew that. So that hardly makes for a good benchmark to judge someone's political knowledge by.

originally posted by: muse7
Now that the credibility of the Ex Mi-6 agent has been vouched for by various intelligence communities from NATO, let's take a closer look at one of the explosive bombshells that he included in the dossier that he authored.

Russian State Oil Company CEO Sechin (who is part of Putin's inner circle) offered Trump/Page associates 19% stake in Rosneft if personal and state sanctions were lifted.

Source to PDF Document

Keep in mind this dossier has been around since last summer, and some interesting developments have taken place since then.

Below are some of them.

November 7th
Russia signed the deal to sell 19.5% of its stake in Rosneft - which amounts to $11 billion - to Glencore Plc and Qatar sovereign wealth fund.
Commodity trader Glencore Plc and Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund agreed to buy a 10.2-billion euro ($11 billion) stake in Russia’s largest oil producer from the state in a triumph for President Vladimir Putin over sanctions imposed by the West.

Bloomberg

December 26th
A top executive of Rosneft Oleg Erovinkin, a former FSB Agent, was found dead with no cause of death given.

Source

In September of last year it was announced that Carter Page would be advising Mr. Trump on "Energy policy and Russia". Page has extensive with executives from Gazprom as a result of his assistance in advising in some of it's biggest deals of the past decade. Gazprom is the investment bank that funded the 19.5% purchase of the Rosneft stake by Glencore.

Source

Qatar Sovereign Fund to invest $10 BILLION in response to Trump's win

The head of Qatar's sovereign wealth fund has told U.S. officials it will invest $10 billion in infrastructure projects inside the United States, sources said, in an apparent boost to the economic plans of president-elect Donald Trump.

Reuters

Qatar was part of the 19.5% of Rosneft.

Bloomberg

Rudy Guiliani's Law Firm has Rosneft as a client.

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP’s London office specializes in energy and has advised oil producers including Apache Corp. and BP Plc on mergers and acquisitions. Other clients include Moscow-based OAO Rosneft.

Bloomberg

Trump's pick for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson has very deep ties to Russia.

Tillerson – the chief executive of ExxonMobil – became a director of the oil company’s Russian subsidiary, Exxon Neftegas, in 1998. His name – RW Tillerson – appears next to other officers who are based at Houston, Texas; Moscow; and Sakhalin, in Russia’s far east.

The Guardian

And finally,

January 13th, 2017

NEW YORK—President-elect Donald Trump suggested he would be open to lifting sanctions on Russia and wasn’t committed to a longstanding agreement with China over Taiwan—two signs that he would use any available leverage to realign the U.S.’s relationship with its two biggest global strategic rivals.

Wall Street Journal

While everyone was focusing on the "golden showers" and all of the other crap, this information was overlooked by the public it seems...

THIS is the true sinister stuff.

We can only hope that the FBI, CIA and the upcoming Senate Intelligence Committee probe that will be opened to investigate all of this stuff will lead us to the bottom of this never ending rabbit hole

Vouched for by whom and how? More anonymous sources?

You're just regurgitating stories.

Your posts are getting tiring.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Yes, lets put them together:

a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: (NEWS) that is meant to look real or genuine but not real or genuine (FAKE)

i.e. FAKE NEWS

So, there is no change to the English language required.

We can keep playing if you like, but the fact remains, you need to prove your allegations by providing evidence.
When you have some, please do share.

Do you work as a politician by chance? You're either one of the dumbest people I have ever spoken with or you're as deceitful as the Clintons.

The NEWS (aka the reporting) is truthful about what the intelligence communities are investigating.

Therefore the NEWS is not fake.

The INTEL may be fake, but we don't know and that's being investigated.

Therefore calling any of the above fake is a FALSE statement.

Do I need to use a truth table to show how the logic works to you?

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

In other words, news is misinformation. IE fake.

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: UKTruth
Yes, lets put them together:

a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: (NEWS) that is meant to look real or genuine but not real or genuine (FAKE)

i.e. FAKE NEWS

So, there is no change to the English language required.

We can keep playing if you like, but the fact remains, you need to prove your allegations by providing evidence.
When you have some, please do share.

Do you work as a politician by chance? You're either one of the dumbest people I have ever spoken with or you're as deceitful as the Clintons.

The NEWS (aka the reporting) is truthful about what the intelligence communities are doing.

Therefore the NEWS is not fake.

The INTEL may be fake, but we don't know and that's being investigated.

Therefore calling any of the above fake is a FALSE statement.

Do I need to use a truth table to show how logic works to you?

I am far more concerned with how deep the Russian ties go with Obama and Hillary than I am with the business dealings Trump may have had.

Just dig a bit into RUSNANO and Joule and Putin and Podesta and you'll find what I mean...

Interesting how they got a US base and how they were not sanctioned....just really interesting.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

In other words, news is misinformation. IE fake.

I can see subtlety and deep thought is your forte.

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: UKTruth
Yes, lets put them together:

a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: (NEWS) that is meant to look real or genuine but not real or genuine (FAKE)

i.e. FAKE NEWS

So, there is no change to the English language required.

We can keep playing if you like, but the fact remains, you need to prove your allegations by providing evidence.
When you have some, please do share.

Do you work as a politician by chance? You're either one of the dumbest people I have ever spoken with or you're as deceitful as the Clintons.

The NEWS (aka the reporting) is truthful about what the intelligence communities are doing.

Therefore the NEWS is not fake.

The INTEL may be fake, but we don't know and that's being investigated.

Therefore calling any of the above fake is a FALSE statement.

Do I need to use a truth table to show how logic works to you?

The news reports what the intelligence communities are doing, but we do not know if it is truthful. For example CNN and NBC reported two different things. Your premise is therefore false.
Once again, I do not need to prove that the Intel is fake. That should be simple to understand. I can legitimately take a position that it is fake until evidence is provided to support the allegations.

Your table is meaningless.

Pages later, I am still awaiting your evidence to support the allegations. Tick Tock.

originally posted by: UKTruth
I can legitimately take a position that it is fake until evidence is provided to support the allegations.

Holy s*** you said something intelligent for a change! Yes, that means you believe it's FAKE INTEL not FAKE NEWS.

And, guess what, shocker, I might actually agree with you on that one!