Merged All things Trump + Russia

[phiwum]

Is this you pushing your narrative, why yes it is! Lol

More proof you're just a partisan, like me.

.

Sorry for replying once again, but pointing out your self-admitted hypocrisy is neither a narrative nor partisan.

 

[logger]

Not at all. I've never said that we should uniformly reject articles with unnamed sources. I have not, for instance, claimed that the article about Obama you cited should be dismissed because it relies on unnamed sources.

If you see any genuine hypocrisy from me, feel free to point it out. But you misfired here, dear boy.

Lol
Actually you're citing articles from unnamed sources as the gospel truth.

I'm pointing it out!

 

[phiwum]

Lol
Actually you're citing articles from unnamed sources as the gospel truth.

I'm pointing it out!

Do point it out then, complete with citation. Let's see if I've done any such thing.

 

[logger]

Sorry for replying once again,

You don't have to apologise, you simply can't resist it.

but pointing out your self-admitted hypocrisy is neither a narrative nor partisan.

Lol
Of course that isn't the narrative I'm referring to.

 

[phiwum]

You don't have to apologise, you simply can't resist it.

You've made accusations that I have behaved hypocritically. I certainly will demand evidence and defend myself.

Lol
Of course that isn't the narrative I'm referring to.

Don't be coy. Say what you mean. I am not going to guess.

 

[logger]

Why not point out why you really reject this article? It's because it involves a narrative not put forth by your "side".

.

This post refers to an article about unnamed sources, do you reject the article?

 

[logger]

Don't be coy. Say what you mean. I am not going to guess.

The narrative I'm referring to is thinking all these hit pieces are the gospel truth.

Are you getting it now, finally?

 

[Minoosh]

Spoke with the Russian ambassador, you think thats what this is about?

No, it's about the continuous, superfluous denials of speaking to Russian officials, and the doubling-down involved even in the face of credible evidence.

The crazy left thinks Trump and Putin stole the election from a moron named Hillary Clinton.

I don't really think that's true. The most liberal new outlets in the world acknowledge Clinton made mistakes. Don't know who you mean by "crazy left." Maybe some think Trump stole the election; I'm not one of them.

 

[phiwum]

This post refers to an article about unnamed sources, do you reject the article?

Please, take your time and write coherent posts.

Which post (or more to the point, which article) do you mean?

 

[phiwum]

The narrative I'm referring to is thinking all these hit pieces are the gospel truth.

Are you getting it now, finally?

Do point out any of my posts which indicate that I've taken a "hit piece" to be the gospel truth.

Much thanks.

 

[Belz...]

The narrative I'm referring to is thinking all these hit pieces are the gospel truth.

Are you getting it now, finally?

So you don't, in fact, have evidence to support your claim?

Fake news!

 

[varwoche]

In today's left, talking to a foreign nation is collusion and therefore illegal.

FAKE NEWS!

Entirely non-responsive. Are you even reading, or just posting FAKE NEWS! on autopilot?

How about we go back to the GOP platform change concerning Ukraine (not FAKE NEWS), Manafort/Trump's role in changing the platform favorable to Russia (not FAKE NEWS), and the fact they lied about it (not FAKE NEWS)?

 

[skyeagle409]

This post refers to an article about unnamed sources, do you reject the article?

Unnamed sources or not, these photos are worth thousands of words, the same photos the Russians later posted that made Trump look like the moron that he is.
.

Trump still in denial Russian ambassador attended White House meeting
Everybody meets with Kislyak but nobody wants to admit it.

The White House didn’t want anybody to know that President Trump met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak along with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Wednesday, and nobody would have known if Russian media hadn’t published multiple photos of all three of them in the Oval Office. But with that cat out of the bag, the administration — “furious” about the Russian photos — is still pretending like Kislyak wasn’t there.

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-kislyak-meeting-f91eaa90c03c

 

[logger]

Please, take your time and write coherent posts.

Which post (or more to the point, which article) do you mean?

The one from the Observer, that recounts a certain unnamed ex NSA agent?

You asked why I didn't accept it?
You thought it was because it didn't fit my narrative.

 

[logger]

No, it's about the continuous, superfluous denials of speaking to Russian officials, and the doubling-down involved even in the face of credible evidence.

You think any particular Whitehouse wants to admit who they talk to, sorry, you don't get to know that.

I don't really think that's true. The most liberal new outlets in the world acknowledge Clinton made mistakes. Don't know who you mean by "crazy left." Maybe some think Trump stole the election; I'm not one of them.

I never said you were one of them.

 

[logger]

So you don't, in fact, have evidence to support your claim?

Fake news!

No usually this is so simple a person doesn't need evidence.

Did you forget how partisans work?

 

[logger]

Entirely non-responsive. Are you even reading, or just posting FAKE NEWS! on autopilot?

How about we go back to the GOP platform change concerning Ukraine (not FAKE NEWS), Manafort/Trump's role in changing the platform favorable to Russia (not FAKE NEWS), and the fact they lied about it (not FAKE NEWS)?

Suppose Putin wanted the platform change, does Trump not have the right if he thinks it might be a good faith effort in future negotiations. Do have a single clue on how these things work?

 

[Belz...]

Did you forget how partisans work?

No I've got you to remind me.

No usually this is so simple a person doesn't need evidence.

That's what they used to say about a lot of things we found out were wrong.

 

[phiwum]

The one from the Observer, that recounts a certain unnamed ex NSA agent?

You asked why I didn't accept it?
You thought it was because it didn't fit my narrative.

I don't believe I asked why you didn't accept this article. Rather, I pointed out that you call this article fake news because it relies on unnamed sources, while you cite another article that does the same thing. You said that this is because "each side believes the narrative that side comes up with."

You also asked whether I accept the claims of that article (which is actually an opinion piece, if I've found the right article). I've only skimmed the article, couldn't find immediately the reference to an ex-NSA agent searching for "NSA", "agent" or "source".

I have no opinion on that article and am unfamiliar with the Observer.

 

[logger]

No I've got you to remind me.

You're not fooling anyone, you're just as partisan as I.