Washington Post accuses conservative activists of pushing fake Moore allegations

[swabian]

I'm not a Russian spy, man. But perhaps i drink like one. WTF are you trying to suggest? No i didn't. I answer directly to what i read. If that causes paranoia in some people then that's not my problem!

[Adar]

I'm not a Russian spy, man. But perhaps i drink like one. WTF are you trying to suggest? No i didn't. I answer directly to what i read. If that causes paranoia in some people then that's not my problem!

I asked because the posts are very close in time and I think your response indicate that you had not yet had the time to read the post I asked about. Given what I posted Condottiores comment is more of a factual observation than an example of paranoia (I know we follow the same news) but your reaction is quite reasonable as you had another perspective at the time.

So to clarify do not think you are a Russian spy, a member of a troll army or any other kind of person who is willingly or accidentally supporting Russia. I just wanted to know what you based your perspective on so I did not get into a pointless argument.

[the_mango55]

Yes, fabricate in an attempt to prove their hypothesis that WaPo doesn’t vet their stories. Their hypothesis was proven wrong. End of story

So now I expect PV to state that WaPo is credible and denounce Moore, yes?

[HannibalExMachina]

That's quite paranoid. I guess you are aware of that.

how so, as russian bots with specific aims are hardly unproven?

[swabian]

how so, as russian bots with specific aims are hardly unproven?

They would bombard pages on Facebook, instagram and similar social media. That's nothing that can get past the superficial glance of superficial people. I doubt bot attacks have any effect at all. There may be a lot of effort behind it, but that in turn may only serve as an incentive to 'defend' against it.

[Admiral Piett]

I am glad they are making some changes. Washington Post was caught on several occasions printing false, unsubstantiated stories. This one here was a massive screw up and PR disaster for them that led to lawsuits from various other media outlets including left-leaning ones accused of being Russian backed outlets. The quality of its work declined a bit after the Amazon CEO bought it.

[Basil II the B.S]

O'Keefe is right to target mainstream media and he just revealed why:




Entous: "Our reporting has not taken us to a plcae where I would be able to say with any confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots with the Russians. There's no evidence of that that I've seen so far."

PV Journalist: "There has to be something, right?"

Entous: "Maybe, maybe not. It could just be lower-level people being manipulated or manipulating, but it's very hard to, it's really...It's a ing black box."

"We've seen a lot of flirtation, if you will, between them but nothing that, in my opinion, would rank as actual collusion. Now that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means we haven't found it yet. Or maybe it doesn't exist."

"I mean it's a ing crap shoot. I literally have no prediction whatsoever as to what would happen, and I do all the stuff for the Post on this so..


​https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935881720729145344

OP, just like any other liberals, is worried that the ''Russia collusion'' turns out to be the fake news it is and feel like an idiot because he has been duped by his own side.

Sorry, next side choose the side of honesty, at least you won't be scammed by it. Choose the Neocon lies, die by Neocon lies.

[Telamon]

Are you really so unaware of your hypocrisy?

O'Keefe is right to target mainstream media and he just revealed why

> suggests fabricating news is okay when targeting liberal media

Sorry, next side choose the side of honesty, at least you won't be scammed by it. Choose the Neocon lies, die by Neocon lies.

> claims to be on the side of honesty.

Also, the only fake news I'm worried about is the fake news peddled by the likes of O'Keefe. Is that tweet supposed to be some sort of revelation? We know there is no evidence so far of Trump colluding, but there's certainly enough information out there to investigate. Do keep up.

[Basil II the B.S]

Are you really so unaware of your hypocrisy?



> suggests fabricating news is okay when targeting liberal media
[FONT=lucida_granderegular][SIZE=3]

That's not what he did.

He did a sting operation and tried to see if WaPo would fall for it.

He didn't ''fabricate news'', that's what the WaPo does.

> claims to be on the side of honesty.

Also, the only fake news I'm worried about is the fake news peddled by the likes of O'Keefe. Is that tweet supposed to be some sort of revelation? We know there is no evidence so far of Trump colluding, but there's certainly enough information out there to investigate. Do keep up.

That's not what you've been saying in other threads.

[Telamon]

That's not what he did.

He did a sting operation and tried to see if WaPo would fall for it.

He didn't ''fabricate news'', that's what the WaPo does.

Cute dig, but PV literally tried to peddle this fake news so WaPo would publish it, so that PV could then pull a 'gotcha!' and accuse them of peddling fake news. It's in the OP, try reading before commenting.

That's not what you've been saying in other threads.

Quote me.

[the_mango55]

Conservatives have such a backwards and skewed view of journalism (and probably truth in general) that they think someone admitting that they don't know where an ongoing invesitgation will lead is scandalous and proof of the news being fake.

I guess because they are so used to predetermining guilt for their enemies and trying to dig up or fabricate evidence to support it.

[Basil II the B.S]

Cute dig, but PV literally tried to peddle this fake news so WaPo would publish it, so that PV could then pull a 'gotcha!' and accuse them of peddling fake news. It's in the OP, try reading before commenting.

He created a fake source for the WaPo to fall. It's not a fake news. If WaPo had fallen for it, it'd be fake news... by the WaPo.

Quote me.

My pleasure:

It's increasingly hard to believe, with all these undisclosed meetings that are consistently being revealed, that there was no collusion in any capacity between the Trump campaign and Putin's regime. Even without the evidence of Russian interference, you have to wonder what good reason Trump's associates had in having all these meetings considering Putin's actions in Ukraine and Crimea, the sanctions and criticism levelled against him by the EU and US, and his anti-democratic, anti-free speech and general anti-Western attititude?

Run.

Actually, wait, don't. I'll have more fun with you:

I find it increasingly hard to believe that after all this the investigation will somehow find Trump to be completely innocent. Maybe he was just the willing idiot but it seems almost certain he had some part in all of this. I guess the issue now is whether Trump supporters will actually accept any such findings. They seem to be of the opinion that everyone is the enemy, whether it's the DOJ, FBI, the media or whoever. I see it on Facebook, on the Fox News comments, I've even waded into Breibart. In this thread too. There never seems to be any acceptance that maybe, just maybe, there is something worth investigating here. It's always some attempt at obfuscation, whether it's bringing up Hillary, the 'lying liberal media', the fact that one time some staff member Mueller hired donated to the Democrat party. Such is their hatred for liberals that I've seen Trump supporters suggest they wouldn't even care if Trump colluded with Russia - he simply did what it took to win. It seems Trump is their Golden Boy, their guardian against those dirty commies sorry liberals, and any suggestion that he might have done wrong is simply ridicilous, and any attempt to investigate is a witch hunt. It is cult like and I worry how long these Americans will take to regain their senses, if ever.

Now your own sarcasm coming back to haunt you:

You don't understand, it was a simple mistake. It's tough remembering to disclose all the meetings with Russians when there's so many of them. Give them a break, they're new at this collusion stuff.

This one was sarcasm directed to specifically me for not believing the collusion story:

This is basically what it's come to: it doesn't matter whether Trump and Russia colluded as long as Democucks and Libtards aren't in power. It doesn't matter that a hostile power attempted to interfere with the election because their side 'won'. Winning is all that matters.

And I got even reported (possibly by you) for calling Democrats Democucks, I got an infraction, it got overturned. Fun times.

And clearly it was not directed at you, because as you admitted you are British, so clearly not a member of the American Democratic party. Funnier times.

I don't think the videos were doctored, despite the unreliable source - it's not as though words are suddenly being spliced together. The people in the video said what they said and CNN messed up by being too quick on publishing a dubious story that it had to retract. It's no secret that Trump-Russia is good for business and the media will keep digging on stories to report.

However, a few media personalities voicing scepticism and one retracted article doesn't prove some overarching liberal media conspiracy against Trump. The liberal media outlets tend to make their money on the basis of providing trustworthy content - peddling fake news is actually bad for business for them (unlike Briebart et al). Nobody is going to subscribe to the Washington Post if it turns out they've been making stuff up (and so far, their reporting has proven rather accurate, the Comey memos being the most obvious example).

Aside from the media reporting, the claim often repeated is that if there was evidence of collusion, it would've been revealed already as the investigation has been going on for so long. That may be so. However, the opposite can also be said. Why would the investigation be going on for so long if there is no evidence of collusion? What are the FBI doing if there's nothing to be found? Why is Mueller hiring more staff?

It seems almost probable that Trump wasn't directly involved in colluding with Russia. Maybe he went along with it, maybe he was the figurehead they needed, the showman to pull this thing off. Perhaps he isn't guilty of collusion, but through his sheer ignorance and bravado it seems highly likely he is guilty of obstruction. The cover up is always worse than the crime.

Still pushing the idea.

To use some favourite phrasing of yours, because now you made me go through your posts, ''it's increasingly hard to belive that you have been saying there's no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion in the past''.

You did now though. An improvement at last.

[Telamon]

You definitely deserve an A for that effort. Must've taken a while. However, I hate to rain on your parade, but I didn't actually say there was evidence of Trump colluding with Russia in any of my quoted posts.

This is awkward.

Also, the only fake news I'm worried about is the fake news peddled by the likes of O'Keefe. Is that tweet supposed to be some sort of revelation? We know there is no evidence so far of Trump colluding, but there's certainly enough information out there to investigate. Do keep up.

You accused me of not saying this in other threads. Let's look at some of my quoted posts.

It's increasingly hard to believe, with all these undisclosed meetings that are consistently being revealed, that there was no collusion in any capacity between the Trump campaign and Putin's regime. Even without the evidence of Russian interference, you have to wonder what good reason Trump's associates had in having all these meetings considering Putin's actions in Ukraine and Crimea, the sanctions and criticism levelled against him by the EU and US, and his anti-democratic, anti-free speech and general anti-Western attititude?

Here I suggest that it's hard to believe there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin's regime. Notice I don't mention Trump individually, but his campaign as a whole. There is a difference. In the following sentence I also say 'even without the evidence' and go on to mention the meetings of Trump's associates, not him.

I find it increasingly hard to believe that after all this the investigation will somehow find Trump to be completely innocent. Maybe he was just the willing idiot but it seems almost certain he had some part in all of this. I guess the issue now is whether Trump supporters will actually accept any such findings. They seem to be of the opinion that everyone is the enemy, whether it's the DOJ, FBI, the media or whoever. I see it on Facebook, on the Fox News comments, I've even waded into Breibart. In this thread too. There never seems to be any acceptance that maybe, just maybe, there is something worth investigating here. It's always some attempt at obfuscation, whether it's bringing up Hillary, the 'lying liberal media', the fact that one time some staff member Mueller hired donated to the Democrat party. Such is their hatred for liberals that I've seen Trump supporters suggest they wouldn't even care if Trump colluded with Russia - he simply did what it took to win. It seems Trump is their Golden Boy, their guardian against those dirty commies sorry liberals, and any suggestion that he might have done wrong is simply ridicilous, and any attempt to investigate is a witch hunt. It is cult like and I worry how long these Americans will take to regain their senses, if ever.

Again, no mention of any evidence implicating Trump, merely speculation on the probability that he had something to do with the whole thing, whether through obstruction or more.

I don't think the videos were doctored, despite the unreliable source - it's not as though words are suddenly being spliced together. The people in the video said what they said and CNN messed up by being too quick on publishing a dubious story that it had to retract. It's no secret that Trump-Russia is good for business and the media will keep digging on stories to report.

However, a few media personalities voicing scepticism and one retracted article doesn't prove some overarching liberal media conspiracy against Trump. The liberal media outlets tend to make their money on the basis of providing trustworthy content - peddling fake news is actually bad for business for them (unlike Briebart et al). Nobody is going to subscribe to the Washington Post if it turns out they've been making stuff up (and so far, their reporting has proven rather accurate, the Comey memos being the most obvious example).

Aside from the media reporting, the claim often repeated is that if there was evidence of collusion, it would've been revealed already as the investigation has been going on for so long. That may be so. However, the opposite can also be said. Why would the investigation be going on for so long if there is no evidence of collusion? What are the FBI doing if there's nothing to be found? Why is Mueller hiring more staff?

It seems almost probable that Trump wasn't directly involved in colluding with Russia. Maybe he went along with it, maybe he was the figurehead they needed, the showman to pull this thing off. Perhaps he isn't guilty of collusion, but through his sheer ignorance and bravado it seems highly likely he is guilty of obstruction. The cover up is always worse than the crime.

Here I'm making the counter-argument to those that suggested if there was evidence of collusion it would've been revealed by now, again referring to the campaign as a whole. Also in this one I specifically say 'It seems almost probable that Trump wasn't directly involved in colluding with Russia' in the paragraph following the bolded text.

So despite your admirable effort, I've given no indiciation in my posting history that I believe there is concrete evidence that Trump personally colluded with Russia. I have learnt how big that chip on your shoulder is, however.

[Basil II the B.S]

So your argument is ''there might be hints that someone (Improbable) that worked for Trump at a certain point talked with someone that worked for Putin at a certain point and that Trump might have known (also improbable) and therefore it's hard to believe there was never collusion between Trump and Putin to steal the election (probable)''.

The basis evidence of the argument is improbable and actually, by your own admission non-existent, but that justifies talking about a hardly therefore probable collusion?

Modern liberal education at its finest.

This is the most dishonest crap I have read in a long while. Non-existent and improbable evidence ''logically'' translates to talk of a probable guiltiness. What the .

[Telamon]

I'm going to go ahead and take that incoherent ramble as your concession that I proved you wrong. Probably best for us to get back on topic now. We already have a thread for Trump and Russia.

[B. W.]

PV goes after targets of opportunity and they have had some stunning successes in uncovering corruption and bias. The WaPo was targeted specifically because they had brought forward some very questionable women to make accusations against Senate candidate Roy Moore. Just because they weren't successful this time doesn't mean that all the objectives of PV in this instance weren't achieved.

Here's another perspective on it:
http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...s_winning.html

[The spartan]

PV goes after targets of opportunity and they have had some stunning successes in uncovering corruption and bias. The WaPo was targeted specifically because they had brought forward some very questionable women to make accusations against Senate candidate Roy Moore. Just because they weren't successful this time doesn't mean that all the objectives of PV in this instance weren't achieved.

Here's another perspective on it:
http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...s_winning.html

It just adds to his reputation of shutting down organizations he doesn't like politically by fabricating stories about them being sex traffickers . I know he is politically convenient for you because he makes stories that make your "enemies" look bad, but don't lie to yourself that it is virtuous.

[B. W.]

It just adds to his reputation of shutting down organizations he doesn't like politically by fabricating stories about them being sex traffickers . I know he is politically convenient for you because he makes stories that make your "enemies" look bad, but don't lie to yourself that it is virtuous.

The stories concerned the fact that they facilitated illegal activities and the videos conclusively proved it. ACORN was a source for vote getting by the Democratic party and it was being funded by American tax dollars. If you want to help fund activities such as ACORN was engaged in then you should do it with private funds, not taxpayer dollars.

[The spartan]

The stories concerned the fact that they facilitated illegal activities and the videos conclusively proved it. ACORN was a source for vote getting by the Democratic party and it was being funded by American tax dollars. If you want to help fund activities such as ACORN was engaged in then you should do it with private funds, not taxpayer dollars.

It wasn't true in ACORN's case, they were cleared of wrong doing in court. They still got shut down.

[B. W.]

It wasn't true in ACORN's case, they were cleared of wrong doing in court. They still got shut down.

In the instance I referred to it never went to court. The prosecutors handling the case were active members of the Democratic Party and they claimed the videos were "heavily edited". In response PV published the videos on u-tube.

The person who founded ACORN is also the same person who founded the SEIU. He is a Democratic Party organizer.

There are plenty of instances where ACORN operatives were found guilty of illegal activities. Here are some:

In a 2007 case in Washington state, in which seven temporary employees of ACORN were charged with submitting fraudulent voter registrations, ACORN agreed to pay King County $25,000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again. According to the prosecutor, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections."^[29][35] In August 2008, ACORN caught, fired and reported employees Maria Miles and Kevin Clancy of Milwaukee, who later pleaded guilty to repeatedly registering the names of the same registered voters.^[36][37][38] In May 2009, six ACORN employees in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty to charges of a combined total of 51 counts of forgery and other violations while registering voters during the 2008 election cycle.^[39]
In plea deals in a 2009 Las Vegas case, former ACORN field director Amy Busefink and ACORN official Christopher Edwards pleaded guilty to "conspiracy to commit the crime of compensation for registration of voters," in connection with a quota system for paid registration staff.^[40] Edwards was sentenced to a year's probation and agreed to testify for prosecutors in charges against ACORN and against Busefink. Busefink appealed her case to the Nevada Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute.^[41][42] In April 2011, ACORN entered a guilty plea to one count of felony compensation for registration of voters, for which they were fined $5000,^[43] but did not concede that the law was constitutional.^[42]