[Roundy]

Dang, I guess Trump didn't bring peace to the Korean peninsula after all.

To be sure, 38 North noted that continued work at the Yongbyon facility should not be seen as having any significant impact to North Korea’s pledge to denuclearize. Instead, the report says the country can be expected to proceed with “business as usual” until specific orders are issued from Pyongyang.

Come on, Roundy. There's no need to disprove your own claims within the same post. Leave some fun for the rest of us!

Aw, do you have to be so smug?

I still don't buy it, I don't see why NK would be spending money and resources to continue making "rapid improvements" to a facility it plans to dismantle, but let's wait and see I guess.

[Pete Svarrior]

Aw, do you have to be so smug?

C'mon. You know me.

I still don't buy it, I don't see why NK would be spending money and resources to continue making "rapid improvements" to a facility it plans to dismantle, but let's wait and see I guess.

It's a tough one. It's obviously possible that KJU is playing Trump like a fiddle. However, I find it more likely that North Koreans are in some weird limbo - their leader committed to doing something, but issued no orders to that effect. What do you do in that situation? Bonus points: if you get it wrong you're a traitor and very bad things happen to you.

[honk]

I would prefer if the media were honest and the President wasn't Trump. But given the situation we have, I kind of enjoy watching him turn the media's own dishonest tactics against them. (It takes a crook to expose a crook?)

But he's not doing anything of the sort. All he does is yell "Fake news!" whenever a story that makes him look bad comes out. There's no clever strategy involved, no artful playing of his opponents, it's all just shameless denials that anyone who isn't a part of his devoted fanbase knows are simply further lies. That Trump frustrates the media and that you dislike the media don't combine to turn him into him some kind of admirable revolutionary.

[Boots]

I would prefer if the media were honest and the President wasn't Trump. But given the situation we have, I kind of enjoy watching him turn the media's own dishonest tactics against them. (It takes a crook to expose a crook?)

But he's not doing anything of the sort. All he does is yell "Fake news!" whenever a story that makes him look bad comes out. There's no clever strategy involved, no artful playing of his opponents, it's all just shameless denials that anyone who isn't a part of his devoted fanbase knows are simply further lies. That Trump frustrates the media and that you dislike the media don't combine to turn him into him some kind of admirable revolutionary.

I agree with pretty much everything after your first sentence. If you watched the last election you would know that he pretty much thumbed his nose at the media and got away with it.

[Rama Set]

Dafuq? You like Professor Incel? Fucking why?

Because he is a thoughtful guy that tries to tackle difficult topics honestly.

[Tom Bishop]

Hmm. What could be worse than the text messages that were sent between those high-level FBI officials after Trump won the election?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/15/theres-no-spinning-peter-strozks-anti-trump-well-s/

There's no spinning Peter Strozk's anti-Trump 'We'll stop it' text

It’s the most damning and politically damaging text part of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email report.

Peter Strozk’s text message exchange with alleged paramour Lisa Page. The two high-level FBI officials were discussing their investigations and the 2016 presidential campaign:

    PAGE: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

     STRZOK: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

[Rama Set]

There's no spinning Peter Strozk's anti-Trump 'We'll stop it' text

It’s the most damning and politically damaging text part of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email report.

Peter Strozk’s text message exchange with alleged paramour Lisa Page. The two high-level FBI officials were discussing their investigations and the 2016 presidential campaign:

    PAGE: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

     STRZOK: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

You don't have to spin it.  Its a text with zero context.  It could very easily have been a joke between two lovers.  Suspicion of conspiracy is not evidence of conspiracy, Tom.

[Tom Bishop]

There's no spinning Peter Strozk's anti-Trump 'We'll stop it' text

It’s the most damning and politically damaging text part of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email report.

Peter Strozk’s text message exchange with alleged paramour Lisa Page. The two high-level FBI officials were discussing their investigations and the 2016 presidential campaign:

    PAGE: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

     STRZOK: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

You don't have to spin it.  Its a text with zero context.  It could very easily have been a joke between two lovers.  Suspicion of conspiracy is not evidence of conspiracy, Tom.

Trump had just won the election and the comments from the high level FBI officials on the Muller Investigation said that they were going to stop Trump from becoming president. Pretty damning.

More texts from the IG report:

On Election Day 2016, Page wrote, "OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING." Strzok replied, "Omg, I am so depressed." Later that month, on November 13, 2016 Page wrote, "I bought all the president's men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate." 

The next day, Nov. 14, 2016, Page wrote, “God, being here makes me angry. Lots of high fallutin’ national security talk. Meanwhile we have OUR task ahead of us.”

Page’s meaning here is unclear, but Senate investigators say, coupled with Strzok’s August 15 text about an, “insurance policy,” further investigation is warranted to find out what actions the two may have taken.

The last text is from Page to Strzok, and comes on June 23, 2017 when she wrote, "Please don't ever text me again."

[Rama Set]

There's no spinning Peter Strozk's anti-Trump 'We'll stop it' text

It’s the most damning and politically damaging text part of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ report on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email report.

Peter Strozk’s text message exchange with alleged paramour Lisa Page. The two high-level FBI officials were discussing their investigations and the 2016 presidential campaign:

    PAGE: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

     STRZOK: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

You don't have to spin it.  Its a text with zero context.  It could very easily have been a joke between two lovers.  Suspicion of conspiracy is not evidence of conspiracy, Tom.

Trump has just won the election and the comments from the high level FBI officials on the Muller Investigation said that they were going to stop Trump from becoming president. Pretty damning.

More texts:

On Election Day 2016, Page wrote, "OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING." Strzok replied, "Omg, I am so depressed." Later that month, on November 13, 2016 Page wrote, "I bought all the president's men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate." 

The next day, Nov. 14, 2016, Page wrote, “God, being here makes me angry. Lots of high fallutin’ national security talk. Meanwhile we have OUR task ahead of us.”

Page’s meaning here is unclear, but Senate investigators say, coupled with Strzok’s August 15 text about an, “insurance policy,” further investigation is warranted to find out what actions the two may have taken.

The last text is from Page to Strzok, and comes on June 23, 2017 when she wrote, "Please don't ever text me again."

Super cool.  Until there is anything definitive, this doesn't seem alarming yet.  Does it warrant further investigation? Sure.

[Rushy]

https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html

92% of Republicans think media intentionally reports fake news

53% of Democrats believe the same.

The absolute state of journalism in the country is that the majority of people believe some or all outlets are intentionally distributing outright falsehoods to support their given narrative.

[Lord Dave]

https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html

92% of Republicans think media intentionally reports fake news

53% of Democrats believe the same.

The absolute state of journalism in the country is that the majority of people believe some or all outlets are intentionally distributing outright falsehoods to support their given narrative.

Bet ya most of that 92% don't include Fox News as Media.
If a trump's narrative of fake news included his supporters as well as his critics, we'd all be better off.  But it doesn't.  Fox is some unspoken exception because they rarely chastize Trump.

[honk]

I agree with pretty much everything after your first sentence. If you watched the last election you would know that he pretty much thumbed his nose at the media and got away with it.

Which is not the same thing as "[turning] the media's own dishonest tactics against them." Trump is not a satirist or social critic in the vein of Socrates or Voltaire. He's just a shameless liar with selfish motivations. I'm stressing this point because I can't stand this whole "what's bad for the establishment is good for me!" idea that Trump undoubtedly owes much of his popularity to. It's such a childish, sophomoric view that simply isn't an accurate reflection of the world. There are some things about the media and the establishment that need to be called out forcefully and torn down, obviously. But the relevance of fact-checking and the notion of yielding (or at least modifying one's position or argument) in the face of overwhelming contradictory factual evidence are not among them.

https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-92-percent-republicans-media-fake-news-9c1bbf70-0054-41dd-b506-0869bb10f08c.html

92% of Republicans think media intentionally reports fake news

53% of Democrats believe the same.

The absolute state of journalism in the country is that the majority of people believe some or all outlets are intentionally distributing outright falsehoods to support their given narrative.

Some of them definitely are spreading lies. It's virtually impossible for them not to be when there are this many of them.

[Boots]

I agree with pretty much everything after your first sentence. If you watched the last election you would know that he pretty much thumbed his nose at the media and got away with it.

Which is not the same thing as "[turning] the media's own dishonest tactics against them." Trump is not a satirist or social critic in the vein of Socrates or Voltaire. He's just a shameless liar with selfish motivations. I'm stressing this point because I can't stand this whole "what's bad for the establishment is good for me!" idea that Trump undoubtedly owes much of his popularity to. It's such a childish, sophomoric view that simply isn't an accurate reflection of the world. There are some things about the media and the establishment that need to be called out forcefully and torn down, obviously. But the relevance of fact-checking and the notion of yielding (or at least modifying one's position or argument) in the face of overwhelming contradictory factual evidence are not among them.

Ok. Well I didn't mean that what Trump was doing was exactly the same thing in every respect. Mostly he got the better of them tho. One tactic he definitely stole from them was posting stuff that wasn't necessarily true about them and his political opponents. He did pull a few good ones during the campaign too. I forgot what the issue was, but one time he got them all hyped up about a press conference he was going to give on some controversial topic. When they arrived he offered a one minute speech that completely de-escalated whatever issue they were on about and then announced the conference over. That was kind of  funny.

I definitely agree that Trump is no Socrates or Voltaire. But then, you would be hard pressed to find someone that was in the current crop of MSM reporters. And I certainly don't deny many of the other criticisms you're giving. I just think many of them could also apply to much of the MSM. You must surely agree that their performance hasn't been stellar of late.

One thing they could do in the press briefing room is to remember they are working for national newspapers, not Gossip Girl.

[Rama Set]

Tim Pool should be the n cut chairman of CNN.

[garygreen]

Come on, Gary. They obviously have an agenda, and as illustrated by the many examples in that link, they obviously contradict themselves depending on what they are trying to argue for at that time. It takes a lot of bias, stretching of the truth, and mental gymnastics to produce masterpieces like this:

oh wow you found a wacky cnn headline.  this spectacular proof that all journalism is just a liberal cabal to annihilate wholesome conservative politics because reasons or whatever.  again, except for all the instances in which they don't, and then they're hypocrites.  for some reason.

tbh i don't get the impression that you understand the difference between news and opinion pieces.

[Pete Svarrior]

tbh i don't get the impression that you understand the difference between news and opinion pieces.

But isn't it a liberal talking point that giving a platform to wacky opinions is terrible and also bad? Why would CNN give a platform to someone who thinks you can violate the law without, well, violating the law?

[Lord Dave]

tbh i don't get the impression that you understand the difference between news and opinion pieces.

But isn't it a liberal talking point that giving a platform to wacky opinions is terrible and also bad? Why would CNN give a platform to someone who thinks you can violate the law without, well, violating the law?

I have never heard this talking point as a liberal talking point.
I'm sure plenty of liberals have it, but that's irrelevsnt to their political stance and more to their personal views.

[honk]

Is anyone going to even read the article to see what all the fuss is about?

https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/opinions/clinton-email-server-ig-report-opinion-cox/index.html

The line in question is intentionally provocative, and the rest of the article is spent explaining the apparent paradox. It's also extremely critical of Hillary. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the author's take, it's pretty disingenuous to simply present the line out of context and crow about how this is what CNN really believes.

[Pete Svarrior]

Is anyone going to even read the article to see what all the fuss is about?

Thanks for setting this straight. I should have known better than to take it at face value.

[Tom Bishop]

I read through the article and still found myself confused at how she violated the law but didn't commit a crime. The article even says that the law in question is a felony.