Florida officials are preparing 'contingency plans' for a possible Trump indictment from New York

Oh sure they are. How many times are you guys going to swallow the same load of crap and continue to remain ignorant that it's clickbait that counts on your gullibility?

I think you are hilarious and should consider stand up.

 

Ray9's claim was that we are getting close to authoritarianism (in the U.S.). None of the strawmen in your list offer an once of corroboration to his pronouncement, nor any reason to believe that Ray9 is right about this. Shall I go through them all with you? That some media outlet, "claimed Melania Trump was a hooker"-- which I actually never even heard, so I am not sure if you are misrepresenting that report-- would in no way prove that we are near, now, to government authoritarian control, even if the entire MSM had gone all-in, on that story, which they didn't.

Now that I'm looking at the end of your list, which I'd frankly not been paying much attention to, on my first read-- because by that point, it was abundantly clear that nothing you wrote had a thing to do with the price of tea in China-- I'm seeing a lot of seemingly erroneous items. For one, despite having heard many reports covering the Steele portfolio, I never heard any report of a media claim to be in possession of the supposed, infamous peeing Russian hookers video. But, again, if one had, it's hard to see how your mind took that as proof that we were nearing authoritarianism. There are numerous other things that you are depicting as lies which I do not know to have been debunked, like there being something that appeared like a gallows, outside the Capitol building, that a cop was beaten by a Trump supporter, with a fire extinguisher, that people did die in, and as a result of, that attack, etc. It is not clear to me if you are denying the stories, out of hand, or if your intent is to focus on some inaccurate detail. But it has been too long for me to recall every one of these details, now, which obviously still take center stage, in your own consciousness. And since this thread is not about the Capitol riot, and your reply has really nothing to do with my post to Ray9, it would appear that there's nothing else to be said.

 

I wasn't responding to Ray9 or his comment. I was responding to your comment. You asked the question as to what proof is there that these credible news outlets are only propaganda masquerading as truth.

I provided several mainstream top news stories they would run with for weeks until getting caught in their own fake propaganda. You didn't like the reality of the answer so you claim its a strawman? You should first learn what a strawman actually is.

https://money.cnn.com/2017/04/12/media/melania-trump-daily-mail-settlement/

You mean like the claim Melania was a professional escort which they had to pay her over 2 million to settle the case. This story was picked up and run by leftist propaganda media for weeks.

But somehow, you never heard of it?

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/15/17233994/comey-interview-trump-pee-tape-russia
The release of former FBI Director James Comey’s new book and memos he wrote last year has plunged the United States of America into yet another round of speculation about whether the Russian government taped Donald Trump watching prostitutes urinate on a hotel bed in Moscow in 2013. The utterly bizarre allegation — which became public by way of Christopher Steele’s infamous dossier — has never been confirmed.

But you never heard of it? I find that hard to believe especially being on a political website that was regurgitating it for months and a runaway leftish media that hosted the story for months.

How convenient for you not to be able to recall weeks of national news stories about the Capital riots claiming a cop was killed with a fire extinguisher, then he was killed with bear gas, then they claimed Trump supporters built gallows, then they claimed Trump supporters took down the American flag at the Capital and replaced it with a Trump flag and on and on. Once they were all found to be left wing propaganda lies, you all of a sudden claim amnesia? So you are asking in your own post to prove the media is propaganda masquerading as truth but you can't recall a major news cycle from 6 months ago?

I find that intellectually dishonest

 

Accidently hit reply before finished.

 

Your examples, then, do not make the case, that all mainstream news outlets are ONLY propaganda, masquerading as truth. What you have shown is something that is already well-understood: not all news reports will be completely accurate. We can add, that all news, like all people, look at things from their particular perspective, which cannot help but affect the reporting. But, as I pointed out, it seems that some of your own examples are, at best, highly-shaded interpretations, if not even untruths, themselves.

How many news stories have there been, over the span of time, covered by your examples of supposedly inaccurate reporting? And what percentage of those have turned out to be true? It is not me, who needs to brush-up on the definition of a strawman argument. If you think the things you listed are proof of a grand conspiracy, in which all media is under the control of some puppet-master, you are sorely mistaken. And believe me, if any real news organization were going to make such a paradigm-indicting, explosive charge, it would have much, much, much, much more to back up that claim.

As to your provided documentation, for the claims you did make:

Your original claim:

My response to you was

And, the article you linked to show who was right about this, thankfully, only requires my quoting of its first line
<SNIP>
The “pee tape” claim, explained
The absurd-sounding, still-UNVERIFIED tale of Trump and Russian prostitutes is back again.
<END SNIP>
So, your claim was inaccurate-- no media outlet claimed that, "THEY were in POSSESSION," of this tape, just as I had said; Vox characterized the report appropriately, as unverified. One must be immune to irony, to not see it, in this situation, in which you are accusing the media of being, "fake news."

Beyond that, you compounded your errant charge against the media with an additional double-dose of incompetent reporting. First, even the part of the article you copied to your reply, contradicted your contention:

Then, you misrepresented my reply to you, on that story:

Again, for the record, your account of what I said, is fake news. To save readers the trouble of lifting their heads, I will re-quote what I did actually say:

So you are 0 for 1.


Moving on, you claimed

Your source (CNN) told of a settlement from The Daily Mail. That is one news outlet and, fyi, not among the those with the best reputations, or among the most trusted, which would include major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, etc), news reporting services (AP, Reuters, etc.) and outstanding journals/papers (WaPo, NY Times, etc). Since none of those others accepted The Daily Mail at its word, all your link does is discredit that particular service's credibility. It, in fact, is evidence contradicting your claim, that the media of the left, is all fake news-- most of it was not at all involved with this story, and any that covered it, I am sure, did so in the same responsible way as Vox had addressed the unverified peeing tape.

Since I am not a follower of that service, and that is not the kind of story I would attribute any importance to, anyway, I must smile at your incredulity that this would have been something that would not be ingrained in my memory--

-- since, once more exposing your own inaccurate perspective, this was not a story that my news sources obsessed over.

That makes you 0 for 2.

Are we starting to see a pattern? As much fun as this is, it is all, really, off of the thread's topic; and I'm trying to reduce the number of my unnecessarily-long threads (as well as trying to waste less time splashing in the waters of truth, as if to encourage a horse who, I already know, is intent on not drinking).

Be well.

 

Supplementary note:
I never said that I could not recall ANYTHING from the January 6, Capitol riot story, as you suggest:

I merely said I could not argue over specific details, as they were no longer fresh in my mind. For example, did people die in the attack--yes; did Capitol Police sustain major injury, including loss of an eye, brain injury, loss of fingers, I believe, as well as broken bones-- yes. Did a couple of the Police commit suicide, in the immediate aftermath of the traumatic ordeal-- yes. But can I cite exact numbers-- no. Complicating the issue, aside from your attempting to have this conversation in an inappropriate thread, is the obscurity which accompanied your charges of, "fake news," that is, what part of the item you were claiming was false.

From your most recent reply, it seems you may be contending that these things never happened at all, which can be called nothing but delusional:

To pretend that I am claiming anything more than an imperfect memory over SPECIFICS which, in themselves, are not changing of the overall picture of the assault (police died of their injuries, and a policeman was beaten over the head with a fire extinguisher; if he actually was not a fatality--which I couldn't say for sure, off-hand-- what is the difference?), well, I think this is one of your quotes that I can rely upon, in this instance, to confidently substitute for my own:

 

So when your coveted ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN knowingly made claims like the Covington Catholic kids are white supremist when they actually had the full video showing the kids were the ones being harassed, (which cost them millions by the way) your excuse was it was nothing but inaccurate reporting?

Kavanaugh is an alcoholic high school serial rapist is inaccurate reporting?

All Trumps loans are cosigned by Russian Oligarchs is inaccurate reporting?

They were lies. Nothing more, nothing less.

So Rachel Maddow, The NYT, Washington Post, MSNBC, are not media outlets big enough for you. You should get out more.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...-dossier-s-trump-pee-tape-claim-1184236611773

 

I don't know why you would think that, since I gave both the NYT, & WaPo, as examples. Sure, MSNBC qualifies, but I was not giving an exhaustive list, just examples to aid you in differentiating these more respectable, reputable, credible outlets from ones less well-established as serious news like, apparently, The Daily Mail. Since I had already named the parent company, NBC, I did not think it necessary to provide you with the name of MSNBC, as well. If I had crossed that bridge, I would have had no excuse not to mention any other network's cable news, as well as Bloomberg News, Al Jazeera, and, God forbid, I leave out FOX (though I have not heard good things about their national, network, editorial news programs).

I looked at the sources you initially linked, in support of your arguments, which failed to do so, as I noted. If The New York Times and/or the Washington Post had articles claiming they possessed this pee tape, you obviously should have provided those up-front; but that's OK, I'll still look if you post the links. But a link that forces me to sit through an old Maddow show, in real time (w/out fast forward)-- no thank you, especially considering your track record, so far. MSNBC is clearly not making (or verifying) the claim, anyway, as I saw that she would be interviewing, in that program, two men who had written a book on the Steele Dossier but, as neither of them is named Steele, anything in it will likely be 2nd-hand info, at best. I believe the writers are credible people, though, including an editor for the quite reputable Mother Jones magazine, David Korn. I don't know what they say about the tape (you wouldn't happen to remember-- preferably verbatim-- would you?) but, even a serious news person can be lied to, and no one's judgement, especially as to the truthfulness of others' sensitive/classified information, is 100%.

I think that is the point that you overlook: as when one gets a weather forecast, the news viewer understands the possibility of some erroneous information, now and then; but it is generally a good deal more accurate than weather forecasts (which are more predicting, than reporting), and one should be able to use a little common sense to frequently identify which story still has details coming in (as an active shooter situation) and is more prone to bad intel, and which ones (as a statement from the Fed Chairman, for example) should be absolutely bankable, so to speak. My point is that the viewers recognize that the info in the news is often quite fresh; they realize they are not getting facts from a history book or program, which has had plenty of time to get everything straight (and nevertheless still contain errors). Finally, just like in the case of a weather report that too frequently botches the job, news consumers know that there is no shortage of other news options, if their current one leaves them dissatisfied with its reliability, and accuracy.

 

This isn't about Trump, this is a smear job on DeSantis to try and alienate floating voters.