• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bob Woodward calls Trump dossier ‘garbage’

American said:
Nope, didn't like that.
Click to expand...

I don't know if your state supported HRC because of the McCain remarks, the government workers and such in NOVA, and/or Sen. Kaine on the ticket.

I can never forget the uninspiring Kaine being the DuNCe chief for the 2010 disaster. His senate seat is certainly in play in 2018.

Here's a link that lets me know about every election, including your governor in 2017. How the hell is any person to figure out a job as difficult as governor in one four-year term limit?

The Green Papers: United States Off Year Election 2017

It'll take you all the way back to the 2000 elections .
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Watergate was fairly bipartisan. Now, if you want to say it began with WJC's impeachment, I would agree...
Click to expand...

Bill was thought to even the score for Nixon but it didn't. Hillary should even the score but it obviously won't. Wherever we think the division started, it isn't ever going to end. I still remember my Veteran Dad watching every day of the Oliver North hearings.

With the sum total of the politics since 11/4/2008, I just don't think Democrats can forgive and forget, especially when trump shoots off his mouth at another person, group, or country to stoke the media fire.

This time it was at Germany, which said it will respond to trump once he's official .
 
NIMBY said:
I don't know if your state supported HRC because of the McCain remarks, the government workers and such in NOVA, and/or Sen. Kaine on the ticket.

I can never forget the uninspiring Kaine being the DuNCe chief for the 2010 disaster. His senate seat is certainly in play in 2018.

Here's a link that lets me know about every election, including your governor in 2017. How the hell is any person to figure out a job as difficult as governor in one four-year term limit?

The Green Papers: United States Off Year Election 2017

It'll take you all the way back to the 2000 elections .
Click to expand...

Caine was not impressive.
 
VanceMack said:
If someone created an obviously false bull**** dossier accusing you of being a child predator, would it be appropriate for media outlets to report "Slyfox696 was briefed by the police on a dossier showing her to be a child predator"?
Click to expand...
Well, first of all, I'm a male, not female, so their facts would be wrong. Second of all, it is not the creation of a document which was the news, but rather the fact intelligence agencies reported to the (soon to be) President about the document which was the news (as I said). Finally, I'm not the next President, so there is a huge difference in the power I wield and the power Trump is about to wield.

So your example fails in almost every way.

No. It's not 'news' that Trump was told there was a bull**** dossier out there that made bull**** allegations.
Click to expand...
Then we disagree. I think it is news if our intelligence leaders think it is important to tell our President there are people who believe he is being compromised by Russia, especially given the absolutely baffling positions he has taken on Russia, particularly with their hacking of Democrats.

It is most definitely news when a President, who has questioned not only the credibility of our intelligence officers, but also their integrity, because he doesn't like their findings regarding Russia, is being told by said intelligence officers there are people who believe Russia has compromised him based on information in a document.

If you don't think that's news, then I seriously question your objectivity and allegiances.
The media outlets reporting it gave the dossier assumed credibility. Look how many leftists on this site jumped to make threads about pissgate.
Click to expand...
So because partisan hacks believe something that means news shouldn't report it? That's an interesting position and one I'm fairly certain you did not apply when the Democrat was President.

But...it was all in good fun...right?
Click to expand...
Hearing our President, who has had absolutely baffling responses which contradict the work of our intelligence regarding the hacks of his political opponents, might be compromised by the country who hacked his political opponents is not what I consider "good fun" at all. Do you?
 
Slyfox696 said:
Well, first of all, I'm a male, not female, so their facts would be wrong. Second of all, it is not the creation of a document which was the news, but rather the fact intelligence agencies reported to the (soon to be) President about the document which was the news (as I said). Finally, I'm not the next President, so there is a huge difference in the power I wield and the power Trump is about to wield.

So your example fails in almost every way.

Then we disagree. I think it is news if our intelligence leaders think it is important to tell our President there are people who believe he is being compromised by Russia, especially given the absolutely baffling positions he has taken on Russia, particularly with their hacking of Democrats.

It is most definitely news when a President, who has questioned not only the credibility of our intelligence officers, but also their integrity, because he doesn't like their findings regarding Russia, is being told by said intelligence officers there are people who believe Russia has compromised him based on information in a document.

If you don't think that's news, then I seriously question your objectivity and allegiances.
So because partisan hacks believe something that means news shouldn't report it? That's an interesting position and one I'm fairly certain you did not apply when the Democrat was President.

Hearing our President, who has had absolutely baffling responses which contradict the work of our intelligence regarding the hacks of his political opponents, might be compromised by the country who hacked his political opponents is not what I consider "good fun" at all. Do you?
Click to expand...

How do we tell the differences between news and propaganda?
 
NIMBY said:
Bill was thought to even the score for Nixon but it didn't. Hillary should even the score but it obviously won't. Wherever we think the division started, it isn't ever going to end. I still remember my Veteran Dad watching every day of the Oliver North hearings.

With the sum total of the politics since 11/4/2008, I just don't think Democrats can forgive and forget, especially when trump shoots off his mouth at another person, group, or country to stoke the media fire.

This time it was at Germany, which said it will respond to trump once he's official .
Click to expand...

I remember the Clinton impeachment going on and thinking that this wouldn't be happening if Nixon wasn't almost impeached. (Clinton and Johnson are the only two actually impeached).

I think impeachment should be used whenever a President does something that qualifies. Probably every President since Nixon could have been charged, because they all step on the Constitution in some way. Not that I want them impeached, I want the threat to be more real so they will not violate the Constitution. It seems to be getting worse, as the more recent Presidents could have been impeached over multiple things that they did.
 
Thoreau72 said:
How do we tell the differences between news and propaganda?
Click to expand...
If it is something which could potentially compromise the security of this country, I'd think it safe to call news.
 
Slyfox696 said:
If it is something which could potentially compromise the security of this country, I'd think it safe to call news.
Click to expand...

What about propaganda? How might you recognize that? How does that fit in with "something that might compromise the security of this country"?

If any story might not compromise the security of the country, would it be propaganda?
 
Slyfox696 said:
Well, first of all, I'm a male, not female, so their facts would be wrong. Second of all, it is not the creation of a document which was the news, but rather the fact intelligence agencies reported to the (soon to be) President about the document which was the news (as I said). Finally, I'm not the next President, so there is a huge difference in the power I wield and the power Trump is about to wield.

So your example fails in almost every way.

Then we disagree. I think it is news if our intelligence leaders think it is important to tell our President there are people who believe he is being compromised by Russia, especially given the absolutely baffling positions he has taken on Russia, particularly with their hacking of Democrats.

It is most definitely news when a President, who has questioned not only the credibility of our intelligence officers, but also their integrity, because he doesn't like their findings regarding Russia, is being told by said intelligence officers there are people who believe Russia has compromised him based on information in a document.

If you don't think that's news, then I seriously question your objectivity and allegiances.
So because partisan hacks believe something that means news shouldn't report it? That's an interesting position and one I'm fairly certain you did not apply when the Democrat was President.

Hearing our President, who has had absolutely baffling responses which contradict the work of our intelligence regarding the hacks of his political opponents, might be compromised by the country who hacked his political opponents is not what I consider "good fun" at all. Do you?
Click to expand...
I really thought you were a woman for some reason. Sorry. But in the context of the dossier presented...what difference does 'facts' make when the entire thing was bull****?

As for the intel community...be honest. Do you Trust them? They were wrong on Iraq. they havent been 'right' on very much for the last 8 years. They produced 1 13 page document supporting their allegation that Russia was responsible for the 'hacking' and the entire 13 page article was complete and total crap, with only 3 paragraphs having ANYTHING to do with the specific incident and even THOSE 3 paragraphs didnt support their claims. Yet...YOU believe them...COMPLETELY. Why? Because what they are saying today fits your bias and hatred against Trump.

Its not fun...but it is a joke.
 
danarhea said:
I wonder why so many of those defending Trump on this were so quick to claim that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster.
Click to expand...

How do you know that these Trump defenders are old enough to have been adults when Bill Clinton was in office?
 
Thoreau72 said:
What about propaganda? How might you recognize that?
Click to expand...
I recognize it all the time. It's merely understanding the difference between fact and opinion, relevant and not relevant and the intention of the author.

How does that fit in with "something that might compromise the security of this country"?

If any story might not compromise the security of the country, would it be propaganda?
Click to expand...
No, news is not exclusively security related. As I said, it depends on relevance, facts and intentions.
VanceMack said:
I really thought you were a woman for some reason. Sorry.
Click to expand...
No worries, I'm not offended. Every now and then I have to check the little sign in a person's message too.

But in the context of the dossier presented...what difference does 'facts' make when the entire thing was bull****?
Click to expand...
Well, first of all, it has not been established the entire thing was bull. Obviously there are some parts which seem a little more sensational than others, but nothing has necessarily been 100% discredited. But even if nothing in there was true, it is still news that intelligence agencies informed Trump this was a thing because people he will deal with might believe it to be true. It's news because Trump has, as I said, had confusing comments on Russian hacking, which don't make any sense...unless put into the context of being compromised by Russia.

As for the intel community...be honest. Do you Trust them?
Click to expand...
Far more than I trust a man who has blatantly and deliberately lied about something he has said or done on video. :shrug:

But you also have to remember the existence of this document, whether it is accurate or not, has been confirmed by people in Congress (McCain, for example) and the Vice President and my understanding is the document has been circulating for some time before it was presented to Trump. So we don't have to just take the intel community's word for it.

They were wrong on Iraq.
Click to expand...
Were they?

https://news.vice.com/article/the-c...t-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion

I haven't read the actual document or even much of the analysis on that link, but what I skimmed certainly suggests they weren't wrong nearly as much as the Bush Administration cherry picked it to justify doing what they had already decided to do.

they havent been 'right' on very much for the last 8 years.
Click to expand...
You have absolutely no way of knowing that. What you DO know is that during the Obama years, we have done a very thorough job of removing leaders of those we call our enemies.

Because what they are saying today fits your bias and hatred against Trump.
Click to expand...
Ahh, I see we are now playing partisan games. I'm sorry, I don't play team politics.

I don't have bias or hatred for Donald Trump. He is soon to be my President and I hope he does well. I very strongly dislike the manner in which he chose to campaign and I detest the fact he seems to have no probably lying or promoting lies in order to get what he wants and I find it ridiculous when a grown man throws a temper tantrum like a child. But, with that said, I hope he does well and I have no bias against him...I only have bias for facts.

And, again, it wasn't just the CIA who said this report existed...numerous government officials, including Senators and the Vice President, have confirmed its existence.

Its not fun...but it is a joke.
Click to expand...
Perhaps to those who think partisanship is a valid argument. I don't.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I recognize it all the time. It's merely understanding the difference between fact and opinion, relevant and not relevant and the intention of the author.

No, news is not exclusively security related. As I said, it depends on relevance, facts and intentions.
No worries, I'm not offended. Every now and then I have to check the little sign in a person's message too.

Well, first of all, it has not been established the entire thing was bull. Obviously there are some parts which seem a little more sensational than others, but nothing has necessarily been 100% discredited. But even if nothing in there was true, it is still news that intelligence agencies informed Trump this was a thing because people he will deal with might believe it to be true. It's news because Trump has, as I said, had confusing comments on Russian hacking, which don't make any sense...unless put into the context of being compromised by Russia.

Far more than I trust a man who has blatantly and deliberately lied about something he has said or done on video. :shrug:

But you also have to remember the existence of this document, whether it is accurate or not, has been confirmed by people in Congress (McCain, for example) and the Vice President and my understanding is the document has been circulating for some time before it was presented to Trump. So we don't have to just take the intel community's word for it.

Were they?

https://news.vice.com/article/the-c...t-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion

I haven't read the actual document or even much of the analysis on that link, but what I skimmed certainly suggests they weren't wrong nearly as much as the Bush Administration cherry picked it to justify doing what they had already decided to do.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that. What you DO know is that during the Obama years, we have done a very thorough job of removing leaders of those we call our enemies.

Ahh, I see we are now playing partisan games. I'm sorry, I don't play team politics.

I don't have bias or hatred for Donald Trump. He is soon to be my President and I hope he does well. I very strongly dislike the manner in which he chose to campaign and I detest the fact he seems to have no probably lying or promoting lies in order to get what he wants and I find it ridiculous when a grown man throws a temper tantrum like a child. But, with that said, I hope he does well and I have no bias against him...I only have bias for facts.

And, again, it wasn't just the CIA who said this report existed...numerous government officials, including Senators and the Vice President, have confirmed its existence.

Perhaps to those who think partisanship is a valid argument. I don't.
Click to expand...
See...you did that thing. Do you trust them?

"Far more than I trust Trump".

Why cant you just answer the question?

Did you read the 13 page report meant to support their allegations? Serious question. It was only 13 pages. Did you read it?
 
Slyfox696 said:
I recognize it all the time. It's merely understanding the difference between fact and opinion, relevant and not relevant and the intention of the author.

No, news is not exclusively security related. As I said, it depends on relevance, facts and intentions.
No worries, I'm not offended. Every now and then I have to check the little sign in a person's message too.

Well, first of all, it has not been established the entire thing was bull. Obviously there are some parts which seem a little more sensational than others, but nothing has necessarily been 100% discredited. But even if nothing in there was true, it is still news that intelligence agencies informed Trump this was a thing because people he will deal with might believe it to be true. It's news because Trump has, as I said, had confusing comments on Russian hacking, which don't make any sense...unless put into the context of being compromised by Russia.

Far more than I trust a man who has blatantly and deliberately lied about something he has said or done on video. :shrug:

But you also have to remember the existence of this document, whether it is accurate or not, has been confirmed by people in Congress (McCain, for example) and the Vice President and my understanding is the document has been circulating for some time before it was presented to Trump. So we don't have to just take the intel community's word for it.

Were they?

https://news.vice.com/article/the-c...t-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion

I haven't read the actual document or even much of the analysis on that link, but what I skimmed certainly suggests they weren't wrong nearly as much as the Bush Administration cherry picked it to justify doing what they had already decided to do.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that. What you DO know is that during the Obama years, we have done a very thorough job of removing leaders of those we call our enemies.

Ahh, I see we are now playing partisan games. I'm sorry, I don't play team politics.

I don't have bias or hatred for Donald Trump. He is soon to be my President and I hope he does well. I very strongly dislike the manner in which he chose to campaign and I detest the fact he seems to have no probably lying or promoting lies in order to get what he wants and I find it ridiculous when a grown man throws a temper tantrum like a child. But, with that said, I hope he does well and I have no bias against him...I only have bias for facts.

And, again, it wasn't just the CIA who said this report existed...numerous government officials, including Senators and the Vice President, have confirmed its existence.

Perhaps to those who think partisanship is a valid argument. I don't.
Click to expand...

If Woodward's assessment of the dossier in question is correct, do you see that as news or as propaganda, or both? What would be the propaganda value of the dossier? The news value?
 
nota bene said:
How do you know that these Trump defenders are old enough to have been adults when Bill Clinton was in office?
Click to expand...

Notice that I said "so many", and not all? But most of those "so many" are my age. I have a good friend in Magnolia, Texas, who is the father-in-law of a guitar player I work with. He strongly supports Trump, and is pissed that people talk about the Russian connection, but believes that Bill Clinton should have been executed over Vince Foster's death. And he's not the only one up there who believes that. There are many. Go to Camilla, Texas, and you will find that most of the population there believe it too. I know that for fact. I go to a gun range there occasionally, and have played there too.

Carl and I are still good friends, but we no longer talk politics. LOL.
 
Thoreau72 said:
If Woodward's assessment of the dossier in question is correct, do you see that as news or as propaganda, or both? What would be the propaganda value of the dossier? The news value?
Click to expand...
Again, you have to separate the presentation of the document from the details of the document. It is an important distinction and one I think Woodward didn't seem to appreciate, in the snippet of conversation I read.

Read a reason behind presenting the document:

CNN said:
One reason the nation's intelligence chiefs took the extraordinary step of including the synopsis in the briefing documents was to make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him are circulating among intelligence agencies, senior members of Congress and other government officials in Washington, multiple sources tell CNN.
Click to expand...
Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him - CNNPolitics.com

This IS important and it IS news. Whether Woodward thinks the information in the document is accurate is not relevant to the discussion of whether or not intelligence presenting the document to Trump is news. They are two separate issues. The fact they presented this to Trump is news...the fact they presented this because these type of allegations are going around intelligence agencies is news. The fact this information was being investigated because of the credibility of the British spy who provided it is news.

Will it turn out that the information is inaccurate? Very possibly. But what's news is the fact the document was presented for this reason. That's news, not propaganda, especially in light of Donald Trump's long-standing denial of Russia's involvement in hacking...a position he reversed only very recently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom