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

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

"We may never know the truth." --Motto of the Kremlin Troll Army.

False association to an obvious statement.
You are clearly not doing well in supporting your ludicrous claims.
Whether we will know the truth or not does not remove the requirement for you to prove allegations. It does not justify your innuendo and propaganda - or fake news.
If you can't prove your case, you lose. Period.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

"We may never know the truth." --Motto of the Kremlin Troll Army.

a reply to: DJW001

"May they never know the truth." --Motto of the Hillary Troll Army.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

That would be a LIE. Fake news would be if the News knew it was a LIE but then went and repeatedly reported it as truth evermore.

But the media are reporting the dossier as being unverified, meaning not necessarily true. Would you rather the story be censored?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

"We may never know the truth." --Motto of the Kremlin Troll Army.

False association to an obvious statement.
You are clearly not doing well in supporting your ludicrous claims.
Whether we will know the truth or not does not remove the requirement for you to prove allegations. It does not justify your innuendo and propaganda - or fake news.

Why don't you and Ignorance just hang out here and star each other's posts? I'm through trying to use reason in a madhouse.

a reply to: DJW001

They reported it as having unverified claims, while at the same time reported there were claims that were verified as false.

MEANING: the document was a piece of trash and they still ran headlines off it.

And it went downhill from there once Trump took a look at it.

And that was days ago.

And you're still in here pressing on like its "NEWS".

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

That would be a LIE. Fake news would be if the News knew it was a LIE but then went and repeatedly reported it as truth evermore.

But the media are reporting the dossier as being unverified, meaning not necessarily true. Would you rather the story be censored?

It's up to the editorial team of a news outlet to decide whether they want to publish fake news based on their own standards, but regardless, if they decide to publish fake news, then it's fake news.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

"We may never know the truth." --Motto of the Kremlin Troll Army.

False association to an obvious statement.
You are clearly not doing well in supporting your ludicrous claims.
Whether we will know the truth or not does not remove the requirement for you to prove allegations. It does not justify your innuendo and propaganda - or fake news.

Why don't you and Ignorance just hang out here and star each other's posts? I'm through trying to use reason in a madhouse.

When you begin to use reason then we might be able to have a decent debate.
Fear mongering with innuendo, defending fake news, asking people to prove something is fake, and pretending that blackmail only requires an accusation, and not an act, is hardly a reasonable position to take.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

That would be a LIE. Fake news would be if the News knew it was a LIE but then went and repeatedly reported it as truth evermore.

But the media are reporting the dossier as being unverified, meaning not necessarily true. Would you rather the story be censored?

this response has to be one of the most frustrating defenses of the mainstream media I've ever seen.

is the media reporting on it with the air and tone of "this is what is being reported, however none of it may be true at all. and if it isn't, then someone has some serious explaining to do"?

or are they reporting on this with an air and tone of "these are unverified reports coming from really credible sources who people trust. this stuff is pretty damning if true"?

do you not see the difference there, or are you purposely being difficult just to play devil's advocate? how do you not see how convenient that is?

Again, if the CIA or FBI or any other alphabet agency had legitimate evidence to suggest collusion between the Kremlin & the Trump campaign, why didn't they release it during the primary season? Why not release it when Trump was named the nominee?

a reply to: ColdWisdom

We could say the same thing about the CIA making claims about Clinton's and Wiener's lap top two weeks before the election. Conservatives are so quick to point the finger, but ignore the same kind of dirty politics the liberals play.

Instead of claiming it's a hoax why don't we do the intelligent thing and wait to see if anything pans out. You Trump supporters are too quick to defend Trump when you yourselves don't have any evidence to the fact and continue to use innuendos to just explain things away. I think the Op has laid out more evidence to the fact than you are!

If this has no basis, it will show itself as being a hoax or dirty politics. If there's real evidence to the fact, the truth has a way of floating to the top.

originally posted by: WeRpeons

Instead of claiming it's a hoax why don't we do the intelligent thing and wait to see if anything pans out.

Exactly how many of its items must proven FALSE before you'll admit that the thing is FAKE?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You have to prove it's false with clear and undeniable EVIDENCE to the fact! The same clear and undeniable EVIDENCE has to be presented to prove it's true! Just saying it's false and not laying out evidence to counter every point the Op has laid out, doesn't give much credibility of the possibility of it being false. Any accusations calling something a hoax or it being a lie, needs to have just as much evidence to prove it's false! How do you defend something when you really don't know yourself if it's true?

I would rather wait and see how the chips fall, before denying it or believing it. We have seen video proof of Trump's lies and back tracking on the issues. Yet some will still deny this "in your face" strong evidence. I think Trump would have more credibility if he hadn't been caught lying so much on his campaign videos.

a reply to: WeRpeons

The Burden of Proof is on the document and those wielding it!

But once its out there, when there are ZERO of its claim shown true (after over 3 MONTHS of intel and media groups having it), and yet items that are shown to be false it goes further down the toilet each new little item of debunked. In such a scenario as this, with NONE verified true then upon the very first one to be proven false the then things enters a standing of being FAKE... until or rather possibly until one is proven true.

edit on 16-1-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)