The worst lie Trump ever told was fake news, And now it is spreading across the world.

[MaryP]

So right wing propagandists lied about the size of Trump’s inauguration audience, while left wing propagandists lied about Russian collusion. Guess which one is more heinous.

I'm not talking about winger propaganda from either side. "Russian collusion" covers a lot of territory for you, doesn't it? Any time evidence of another tie to Russian powers that be in Trump's circle came to light, the right screamed 'fake news.' It wasn't fake. There was speculation and opinion pieces that quite reasonably raised the question of willing Trump involvement based on those ties. Mueller laid the collusion question to rest. It was reported by the same media that you call fake and, by golly, that time you believed them.

I know this is true because I never bought into Russian collusion in the campaign. I didn't know if it was true, so I decided to keep an open mind until I heard from Mueller. So I know that most of the reporting by the MSM was not reporting collusion as a fact. CNN is not 'MSM,' imo.

 

[MaryP]

It provided a bipartisan Senate imprimatur for an extraordinary set of facts: The Russian government disrupted an American election to help Mr. Trump become president, Russian intelligence services viewed members of the Trump campaign as easily manipulated, and some of Mr. Trump’s advisers were eager for the help from an American adversary.

G.O.P.-Led Senate Panel Details Ties Between 2016 Trump Campaign and Russia (Published 2020)

A nearly 1,000-page report confirmed the special counsel’s findings at a moment when President Trump’s allies have sought to undermine that inquiry.

www.nytimes.com

There was Trump-Russia collusion — and Trump pardoned the colluder

Trump’s potential political rivals should remember that he handed the ultimate political favor to the man who colluded with Russia amid Moscow’s campaign to undermine American democracy.

thehill.com

But it's not collusion. It's being a stupid tool.

 

[bomberfox]

You're absolutely correct. All anyone has to do to refute anything they don't like is say "fake news".

Imagine if Hitler or Stalin had figured that out.

Hitler did figure it out actually. Lugenpresse while it didnt originate from him, thats the same tactic he used to destroy trust in German media.

 

[bomberfox]

Fake News!

This results in people not trusting journalism, which makes it similar to authoritarian countries where they simply don't allow opposition journalism.
Even in authoritarian nations, people pirate journalism and get the real stories. Here in America there is no need, just cry "fake news", and claim CNN is so untrustworthy, and your loyal cult followers will ignore them and only consume right-wing media.

Over time, right-wing propaganda has brainwashed their followers. They have incorporated right-wing extremist views into their culture. At this point they are lost and even without a steady stream of poison from right-wing-media they are still lost, and cannot accept reality. Just look at the big lie...some huge percentage still thinks Trump won, when it was made up and has no evidence to support it, and all evidence is contrary to it.

By undermining legitimate journalism, they have helped destroy the nation, and it can't easily be undone. Interestingly enough, Fox news was party to this, and happily helped destroy confidence in their major competitors...

That was fox news’ purpose from the beginning. Roger Ailles just had enough sense that he had to use segments of their company to produce legitimate news alongside their main export, propaganda. Murdoch didnt have that kind of savvy so when Ailles got booted the mask came off.

 

[American]

He didn't invent it though.
Hitler popularized "Die Lugenpresse!!!" (the lying press!!!) but even he didn't invent it.
Mussolini used it, Francisco Franco used it, Rwandan Hutus used it, Nicolae Ceaușescu used it.

Apples and oranges, but I get where the partisan hackery of this post is going.

 

[reflechissez]

Since this is a partisan issue, may I suggest that members of both sides might be ill informed. The need to hear and read what one wishes to hear and read crosses party lines.

Meh. If your go-to sources are Fox, Breitbart, DailyCaller, Bongino, Free Beacon, Washington Times, The Blaze, etc., you're not well-informed.

 

[Ouroboros]

It provided a bipartisan Senate imprimatur for an extraordinary set of facts: The Russian government disrupted an American election to help Mr. Trump become president, Russian intelligence services viewed members of the Trump campaign as easily manipulated, and some of Mr. Trump’s advisers were eager for the help from an American adversary.

G.O.P.-Led Senate Panel Details Ties Between 2016 Trump Campaign and Russia (Published 2020)

A nearly 1,000-page report confirmed the special counsel’s findings at a moment when President Trump’s allies have sought to undermine that inquiry.

www.nytimes.com

There was Trump-Russia collusion — and Trump pardoned the colluder

Trump’s potential political rivals should remember that he handed the ultimate political favor to the man who colluded with Russia amid Moscow’s campaign to undermine American democracy.

thehill.com

You do know that Russian intelligence has always been devoted in sowing dissension in America for a long time? Their opinions of Trump and his people may weigh heavily on your scales. In mine, not so much.

 

[Ouroboros]

Apples and oranges, but I get where the partisan hackery of this post is going.

Why isn’t Hitler’s idea of fake news not relevant to the argument? Does the narrative lose force if you can’t claim Trump was the Father of Lies?

 

[Rawley]

I think I know.

Trump's methodical undermining of reliable news as 'fake' if was detrimental to Trump. That was and is poison injected into the very heart of this nation. How can we talk through our differences if we can't even agree on basic facts?

Hmmm The whole Russia Russia Russia thing was fake news and the MSM spread that bullshit for three straight years. IMHO that is the poison - when the press give up any objectivity and journalistic integrity and become partisan actors

 

[Ouroboros]

Meh. If your go-to sources are Fox, Breitbart, DailyCaller, Bongino, Free Beacon, Washington Times, The Blaze, etc., you're not well-informed.

By all means, go back to Don Lemon and Joy Reid. How’d you like Reid saying that the media was giving Ukraine disproportionate attention because they’re white Europeans?

 

[reflechissez]

By all means, go back to Don Lemon and Joy Reid. How’d you like Reid saying that the media was giving Ukraine disproportionate attention because they’re white Europeans?

I don't watch either one of them. Next.

 

[craig]

You do know that Russian intelligence has always been devoted in sowing dissension in America for a long time? Their opinions of Trump and his people may weigh heavily on your scales. In mine, not so much.

So then there was not only collusion but treason?

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not talking about winger propaganda from either side. "Russian collusion" covers a lot of territory for you, doesn't it? Any time evidence of another tie to Russian powers that be in Trump's circle came to light, the right screamed 'fake news.' It wasn't fake. There was speculation and opinion pieces that quite reasonably raised the question of willing Trump involvement based on those ties. Mueller laid the collusion question to rest. It was reported by the same media that you call fake and, by golly, that time you believed them.

I know this is true because I never bought into Russian collusion in the campaign. I didn't know if it was true, so I decided to keep an open mind until I heard from Mueller. So I know that most of the reporting by the MSM was not reporting collusion as a fact. CNN is not 'MSM,' imo.

To me collusion means sustained contact between a given regime and a foreign power, not just a few outliers. I think you’re agreeing that Mueller did not prove that, but that didn’t keep MSM— not just CNN— from claiming that the outliers Mueller tagged proved their case.

 

[Rawley]

Meh. If your go-to sources are Fox, Breitbart, DailyCaller, Bongino, Free Beacon, Washington Times, The Blaze, etc., you're not well-informed.

On what basis do you conclude that?

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't watch either one of them. Next.

Are people who do watch them well informed, since that was your ostensible point?

 

[Ouroboros]

So then there was not only collusion but treason?

Nothing I said remotely suggests treasonous acts by anyone. Fail on your part.

 

[craig]

To me collusion means sustained contact between a given regime and a foreign power, not just a few outliers. I think you’re agreeing that Mueller did not prove that, but that didn’t keep MSM— not just CNN— from claiming that the outliers Mueller tagged proved their case.

Could obstruction of justice be why he did not have the evidence to indict for collusion?

Mueller: I did not clear Trump of obstruction of justice

Former Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller told lawmakers Wednesday he could not exonerate President Donald Trump of obstruction of justice and that the president's claims that he had done so in his report are not correct.

www.pbs.org

 

[reflechissez]

Are people who do watch them well informed, since that was your ostensible point?

I made no comment about that -- ostensibly or otherwise. Next.

 

[reflechissez]

To me collusion means sustained contact between a given regime and a foreign power, not just a few outliers. I think you’re agreeing that Mueller did not prove that, but that didn’t keep MSM— not just CNN— from claiming that the outliers Mueller tagged proved their case.

How many times and how many people does it take to be "sustained?"

 

[Lovebug]

Meh. If your go-to sources are Fox, Breitbart, DailyCaller, Bongino, Free Beacon, Washington Times, The Blaze, etc., you're not well-informed.

Beats ignoring all news and voting straight party line because that's "how we have always done it."

 

[MaryP]

To me collusion means sustained contact between a given regime and a foreign power, not just a few outliers. I think you’re agreeing that Mueller did not prove that, but that didn’t keep MSM— not just CNN— from claiming that the outliers Mueller tagged proved their case.

It wasn't outliers. 17 individuals on his team over 100 times. All proven contacts. So there was room for conjecture there.

Here Are All the Times Donald Trump and His Associates Intersected With Russians

The Attorney General said the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion, but Trump associates still had a lot of contact with Russians.

time.com

 

[Greenbeard]

In May of 2017 when Republicans were authoring a new health care bill, CNN claimed that GOP changes to Obamacare could make rape and sexual assault pre-existing conditions. That was not true, as nothing in the changes effected the definition of preexisting conditions.

The GOP voted dozens and dozens of times over the better part of a decade to bring back pre-existing conditions. They boasted about it, campaigned on it, build their entire political identity around it. As recently as last year their last Hail Mary attempt to get the courts to bring back pre-existing conditions (after their legislative attempts were repeatedly turned back by the Dems) was before the Supreme Court. No one should have any doubt about the GOP's position and intent on pre-existing conditions.

 

[Ouroboros]

Could obstruction of justice be why he did not have the evidence to indict for collusion?

Mueller: I did not clear Trump of obstruction of justice

Former Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller told lawmakers Wednesday he could not exonerate President Donald Trump of obstruction of justice and that the president's claims that he had done so in his report are not correct.

www.pbs.org

Only if you place all your faith in circumstantial evidence— which has been the Mad Lib way of doing things for a couple of decades now.

 

[Ouroboros]

I made no comment about that -- ostensibly or otherwise. Next.

I know you made no comment on the left wing media the first time, but since I asked you a question to test your judgment of partisanship, now you’re just dodging. So your opinion of others’ lack of information is proved partisan and hence inconsequential.

 

[Ouroboros]

How many times and how many people does it take to be "sustained?"

Far more than Mueller’s fishing expedition brought back.