Page 917 of 1191 FirstFirst ... 4178178679079159169179189199279671017 ... LastLast
Results 9,161 to 9,170 of 11903

Thread: Russia Investigation Heating Up

  1. #9161

    Default

    But let's get this thread rolling again.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/rgoodlaw/...47889356677120

  2. #9162
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    34,071
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Astray View Post
    The Reddit was mine, I used it primarily to check gaming news and memes. Hilariously enough, I hadn't been active for a while. The CyberPunk 2077 Reddit was my main news source though. Rarely posted.

    The YouTube was from my Blog. Which means he went and watched my videos for info. At least SOMEONE here watches my shitty content.
    You blog sucks. You really must have triggered him though. He probably has your CC numbers now.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  3. #9163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    You blog sucks.
    Your blog sucks!

  4. Default

    Every blog sucks

  5. #9165
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    34,071
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Astray View Post
    Your blog sucks!
    My blog is a work of divine art. It is so great I didn't even care about it.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Astray View Post
    You've taken anonymous sources seriously before, why not this one?
    Anonymous sources from reputable publications should be taken with a grain of salt, of course (always ask yourself who benefited most from that information getting out- that usually tells you where it's coming from), but they are generally accurate. Outlets like ABC, WaPo, NYT, NBC, etc. don't publish stories on a single anonymous source except in extraordinary circumstances (and they typically make it very clear).

    Anonymous sources from non-reputable publications should generally be assumed to be false. It's not that they are always false, but there isn't the same guarantee of journalistic standard, and they often abuse the "anonymous source" concept to proliferate fake news.

    Having said all of that- I would say take any story about what Mueller's team is going to say/do with an entire ocean of salt. Mueller's team has been airtight. The "anonymous sources" have been the Trump legal team/friends and grand jury witnesses. It's never from the Mueller team itself.

    I've seen several journalists allude to the fact that the steady stream of "Mueller's about to wrap things up!" tips are coming directly from Trump's legal team and allies (likely to placate him), for example.

  7. #9167
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    34,071
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    Anonymous sources from reputable publications should be taken with a grain of salt, of course (always ask yourself who benefited most from that information getting out- that usually tells you where it's coming from), but they are generally accurate. Outlets like ABC, WaPo, NYT, NBC, etc. don't publish stories on a single anonymous source except in extraordinary circumstances (and they typically make it very clear).

    Anonymous sources from non-reputable publications should generally be assumed to be false. It's not that they are always false, but there isn't the same guarantee of journalistic standard, and they often abuse the "anonymous source" concept to proliferate fake news.

    Having said all of that- I would say take any story about what Mueller's team is going to say/do with an entire ocean of salt. Mueller's team has been airtight. The "anonymous sources" have been the Trump legal team/friends and grand jury witnesses. It's never from the Mueller team itself.

    I've seen several journalists allude to the fact that the steady stream of "Mueller's about to wrap things up!" tips are coming directly from Trump's legal team and allies (likely to placate him), for example.
    The anonymous source ABC used was from the Mueller team.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  8. #9168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Androidpk View Post
    And Rudy says it's going to be horrific and very damning to Trump.
    What happened to Rudy is a retard who doesn't know what he's talking about? Or does that only apply when you disagree with him?

    Tard.
    Discord: 3PiecesOfToast
    [Private]-GSIV:Nyatherra: "Until this moment i forgot that i changed your name to Biff Muffbanger on Lnet"
    Quote Originally Posted by Back View Post
    I am a retard. I'm disabled. I'm poor. I'm black. I'm gay. I'm transgender. I'm a woman. I'm diagnosed with cancer. I'm a human being.
    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    So here's the deal- I am just horrible



  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    The anonymous source ABC used was from the Mueller team.
    It wasn't. It was from people who have been working with them. That's a big difference.

    Also, that point was undercut by the Manafort polling data info.

  10. #9170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    Anonymous sources from reputable publications should be taken with a grain of salt, of course (always ask yourself who benefited most from that information getting out- that usually tells you where it's coming from), but they are generally accurate. Outlets like ABC, WaPo, NYT, NBC, etc. don't publish stories on a single anonymous source except in extraordinary circumstances (and they typically make it very clear).
    Yes, anonymity is something I take with a grain of salt. That's why I don't typically believe any of it. Even if it comes from a 'reputable' source, the political climate shifts far too much and too often to deem any anonymous source as credible. The age of technology has shifted what can and cannot be faked far too much.

    Anonymous sources from non-reputable publications should generally be assumed to be false. It's not that they are always false, but there isn't the same guarantee of journalistic standard, and they often abuse the "anonymous source" concept to proliferate fake news.
    Again, all anonymous sources should be looked at with doubt. The guarantee of journalistic standards from places is called into question, in my mind, when I see 30 previous publications that hold no actual merit or deviation to the already hostile environment that is political alliances. I've always doubted the news because agenda, agenda, agenda.

    Having said all of that- I would say take any story about what Mueller's team is going to say/do with an entire ocean of salt. Mueller's team has been airtight. The "anonymous sources" have been the Trump legal team/friends and grand jury witnesses. It's never from the Mueller team itself.
    What point do you stop shoveling salt into the ocean?

    I've seen several journalists allude to the fact that the steady stream of "Mueller's about to wrap things up!" tips are coming directly from Trump's legal team and allies (likely to placate him), for example.
    Placating one side or the other is pretty much what journalists do these days. So again, salty ocean.

Similar Threads

  1. Russia investigation investigation
    By Tgo01 in forum Politics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-16-2023, 10:47 AM
  2. Russia Investigation Cooling Down
    By Methais in forum Politics
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 03-23-2019, 07:51 PM
  3. Investigation over at Auburn.
    By Makkah in forum Sports
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-13-2011, 10:38 AM
  4. Sestek-gate Investigation
    By Mabus in forum Politics
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 06-04-2010, 11:45 AM
  5. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 01:13 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •