Trump is running a survey on the media!

[Chiropteran]

You understand polling is done as a prediction of potential results, it is not seeing the future.

Correct. The question is, after a news organization gets a poll so horribly wrong, would you continue to treat their news reports as gospel truth?

They are either so inept that they got things completely wrong, or they know the real polling numbers and decided to falsely report. Neither possibility should build any confidence in CNN's future news "reports".

 

[sdifox]

Oh, you think CNN didn't report on pissgate even though I linked to the story? You really are stupid.

They reported on the dossier, said it was not verified with other source, no mention of piss.

Now go stand in a corner like you promised.

[LIST]
[*]Election Results
[*]Nation
[*]World
[*]Our Team
[*]CNN.com
[/LIST]


US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier
By Jim Sciutto and Evan Perez, CNN



Updated 5:25 PM ET, Fri February 10, 2017







[IMG]http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170210153140-trump-0130-exlarge-169.jpg[/IMG]
[LIST]
[paste:font size="5"]
[/LIST]
As CNN first reported, then-President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama were briefed on the existence of the dossier prior to Trump's inauguration.

None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs.
But the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier, according to the officials. CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump.
The corroboration, based on intercepted communications, has given US intelligence and law enforcement "greater confidence" in the credibility of some aspects of the dossier as they continue to actively investigate its contents, these sources say.
Reached for comment this afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said, "We continue to be disgusted by CNN's fake news reporting."
Spicer later called back and said, "This is more fake news. It is about time CNN focused on the success the President has had bringing back jobs, protecting the nation, and strengthening relationships with Japan and other nations. The President won the election because of his vision and message for the nation."
Spokespeople for the FBI, Department of Justice, CIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.
US intelligence officials emphasize the conversations were solely between foreign nationals, including those in or tied to the Russian government, intercepted during routine intelligence gathering.
Some of the individuals involved in the intercepted communications were known to the US intelligence community as "heavily involved" in collecting information damaging to Hillary Clinton and helpful to Donald Trump, two of the officials tell CNN.
Until now, US intelligence and law enforcement officials have said they could not verify any parts of the dossier.
Officials who spoke to CNN cautioned they still have not reached any judgment on whether the Russian government has any compromising information about the President.
Officials did not comment on or confirm any alleged conversations or meetings between Russian officials and US citizens, including associates of then-candidate Trump.
One of the officials stressed to CNN they have not corroborated "the more salacious things" alleged in the dossier.
CNN has not reported any of the salacious allegations.
Trump dismissed the entire dossier last month during his only news conference as President-elect, saying in January, "It's all fake news. It's phony stuff. It didn't happen."
The dossier was commissioned as opposition research by political opponents of then-candidate Trump and compiled by a former British intelligence agent. US intelligence agencies checked out the former MI6 operative and his vast network throughout Europe and found him and his sources to be credible.
CNN's Pamela Brown and Marshall Cohen contributed to this story.




[LIST]
[*]
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*]
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*]
[/LIST]

[LIST]
[*]
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*]
[/LIST]



[LIST]
[*]
[/LIST]




[LIST]
[*]
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*]
[/LIST]


[LIST]
Content by LendingTree
[*][SIZE=4][B]Rates now at 3.2% APR (15 Yr Fixed). Do you qualify?[/paste:font][/B][/SIZE]
[*]Fastest way to pay off $10,000 in credit card debt
[*]Can you save on your mortgage?
[*]The amazing VA benefits not enough vets are claiming
[*]Reverse Mortgages: Worth the risk?
[/LIST]
[LIST]
Paid Partner Content
[*]Top 7 cards for excellent creditNextAdvisor
[*]Intermediate heart risk? Try TAVR nowHealthgrades
[*]The next generation of Big Bang timepieces from Hublot is hereWallpaper
[*]6 health concerns for women with HIVHealthgrades
[*]10 mind-blowing credit cards charging 0% interest until 2018NextAdvisor
[/LIST]



Sections
[LIST]
[*]Election Results
[*]Nation
[*]World
[*]Our Team
[/LIST]
Follow us
CNN.com
© 2017 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network. Terms of service | Privacy guidelines

 

[Chiropteran]

They never fucking reported it. Nothing you linked is them reporting it. Everyone in this thread has told you that. And yet you are still here arguing the same nonsense.

You are what is wrong with the current political discourse.

What do you think pissgate is about?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pissgate

Notice how the first topic is the fucking dossier. Notice how the CNN article I linked is all about the fucking dossier.

Sorry, you must be mentally challenged if you can't see the obvious connection.

 

[Brainonska511]

Correct. The question is, after a news organization gets a poll so horribly wrong, would you continue to treat their news reports as gospel truth?

You do know that a 30% chance of winning is more than a 0% chance of winning, right? Doesn't sound like there was really a polling error at all. And to top it off, the election was decided by ~80,000 votes across 3 states. That's the number of people at a Green Bay football game. A less than 1% swing would have easily led to a different outcome.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

What do you think pissgate is about?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pissgate

Notice how the first topic is the fucking dossier. Notice how the CNN article I linked is all about the fucking dossier.

Sorry, you must be mentally challenged if you can't see the obvious connection.

Your original claim is that CNN LIED. The dossier is real. It has been corroborated by every level of government. That is not LYING. that is reporting on factual information. They never reported on the salacious content which was..... tada! The pissing!

But I'm a reasonable person. If someone tells me I'm wrong on this I'll listen to them. Not you though. You, Corky, I won't listen to.

 

[Chiropteran]

They reported on the dossier, said it was not verified with other source, no mention of piss.

Now go stand in a corner like you promised.

So if I was talking about how Nixon was impeached, and mentioned the crimes committed and how the process went down, but I didn't mention the watergate hotel by name, you would say that I wasn't actually talking about watergate?

 

[Brainonska511]

Notice how the first topic is the fucking dossier. Notice how the CNN article I linked is all about the fucking dossier.

Except that wasn't the only thing in the "fucking dossier". And CNN never reported about the micturation incident, they merely reported on the existence of the dossier.

 

[Brainonska511]

So if I was talking about how Nixon was impeached, and mentioned the crimes committed and how the process went down, but I didn't mention the watergate hotel by name, you would say that I wasn't actually talking about watergate?

If you were talking about how Nixon was impeached, you'd be wrong because he wasn't impeached.

 

[emperus]

Correct. The question is, after a news organization gets a poll so horribly wrong, would you continue to treat their news reports as gospel truth?

They are either so inept that they got things completely wrong, or they know the real polling numbers and decided to falsely report. Neither possibility should build any confidence in CNN's future news "reports".

You do know how polling works right?

 

[Chiropteran]

Your original claim is that CNN LIED. The dossier is real. It has been corroborated by every level of government. That is not LYING. that is reporting on factual information. They never reported on the salacious content which was..... tada! The pissing!

But I'm a reasonable person. If someone tells me I'm wrong on this I'll listen to them. Not you though. You, Corky, I won't listen to.

If you were talking about how Nixon was impeached, you'd be wrong because he wasn't impeached.

So I would be making some false claims about watergate, just like CNN did regarding pissgate.

 

[Chiropteran]

Your original claim is that CNN LIED.

Try again.

You know, you can scroll back and go to previous pages and read my original claim. You shouldn't rely on your obviously flawed memory.

 

[fskimospy]

Grade A idiot here. You don't need to refute baseless claims. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you are claiming Trump lied about 3 million illegal voters, then you need to prove that claim. It's not my job to disprove wild accusations made without any merit.

Yes, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which is fucking Trump you moron. It is frankly hilarious to see you accuse people of exactly what you're doing while not even realizing it.

You should quit while you're less far behind.

 

[brandonbull]

Actually, that's exactly what Trump said, if you'd bothered to read further into his comments.

"We got 306 because people came out and voted like they've never seen before so that's the way it goes," Trump said. "I guess it was the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan," Trump said.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factc...rong-at-news-conference/ar-AAn1KPZ?li=BBnbcA1

Did you not read or fully understand what was said? He is claiming it a big win because he was not even expected to compete with Clinton in EC votes. So he said biggest win or largest margin of victory? I guess he should have said it was an unexpected win? How many times do we hear interviews with athletes proclaiming their victory a big win even if it is by the closest of margins? Typically big wins are quantified by more of the significance it represents to them and not the numeric margin. People wonder why there are so many problems. Focusing on the dumbest and least significant items while ignoring the 800-lb elephant in the room.

 

[Chiropteran]

The dossier is real.

It's a real fabricated document based on lies. Based on that sort of broken logic, everything Trump said is true: after all, he really did say those things. They are real statements!

 

[sandorski]

According to my fb news feed, Trump is a genious! Because Dr Ablow said so on Fox News!!

 

[sandorski]

It's a real fabricated document based on lies. Based on that sort of broken logic, everything Trump said is true: after all, he really did say those things. They are real statements!

This is not what self-Banned looks like. Sad.

 

[Chiropteran]

Yes, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which is fucking Trump you moron. It is frankly hilarious to see you accuse people of exactly what you're doing while not even realizing it.

You should quit while you're less far behind.

That is not how it works.

You can say it hasn't been proven, but you can't call it a lie unless you prove it's false.

If I tell you I am sick with the flu, it's not a lie just because I don't offer proof.

And really, Trump doesn't care. He made the statement without backing it up because it's an irrelevant statement. So what? The US election relies on the EC system. The popular vote is meaningless. He was just getting a crowd excited.

 

[fskimospy]

Did you not read or fully understand what was said? He is claiming it a big win because he was not even expected to compete with Clinton in EC votes. So he said biggest win or largest margin of victory? I guess he should have said it was an unexpected win? How many times do we hear interviews with athletes proclaiming their victory a big win even if it is by the closest of margins? Typically big wins are quantified by more of the significance it represents to them and not the numeric margin. People wonder why there are so many problems. Focusing on the dumbest and least significant items while ignoring the 800-lb elephant in the room.

No, his later statements explicitly show that he was referring to the margin of victory and not that it was unexpected. When informed that his statement was incorrect he said this:

I don't know. I was just given that information - it was a big margin.

It is impossible to reconcile that statement with your attempt at rationalizing it as simply being about its unexpected nature.

 

[fskimospy]

That is not how it works.

You can say it hasn't been proven, but you can't call it a lie unless you prove it's false.

If I tell you I am sick with the flu, it's not a lie just because I don't offer proof.

And really, Trump doesn't care. He made the statement without backing it up because it's an irrelevant statement. So what? The US election relies on the EC system. The popular vote is meaningless. He was just getting a crowd excited.

You can't prove a negative, genius. That's why the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which was Trump. I love how you just torpedoed your own argument.

 

[Chiropteran]

This is not what self-Banned looks like. Sad.

Another idiot thinks CNN didn't cover pissgate.

You can't prove a negative, genius. That's why the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which was Trump. I love how you just torpedoed your own argument.

You really are dumb. Proving that at least 3 million people didn't vote legally IS a negative.

 

[cytg111]

Except, it seems that is not what you are doing. You are trusting a select few media sources, which are owned by major clinton campaign supporters, and ignoring any media source that disagrees with the narrative.

Yet all one has to do is to watch him in a live transmission at wich point it dawns on you that it is all true.. an Orange alien is running your contry... and it has nukes... wtf..

 

[interchange]

My perspective is that one can dispense knowledge far easier than understanding. When properly put to use informed understanding is a working definition of wisdom. That is very hard to instill in others. Well, that's my opinion at least.

We all make a fundamental error when working with other people. We craft our words to match what we imagine is in another person's mind. But our imagination is that other people's minds are like our own.

Not only are our values sometimes not shared by others, they may be a threat to them.

It's hard to walk away, because doing so is admitting that the superiority of reason doesn't always get you what you want (and know is right).

 

[fskimospy]

Another idiot thinks CNN didn't cover pissgate.

They didn't. You have been asked repeatedly for literally any evidence that they did and you've failed. You even claimed you would ban yourself if you couldn't and yet you're still here. That means you're both stupid and a liar.

You really are dumb. Proving that at least 3 million people didn't vote legally IS a negative.

This is hilarious. You have to be one of the stupidest people on this board and that's saying a lot. Do you even know what proving a negative is? Let me see if I can help:

You're garbling your own (and Trump's) arguments into incoherence. Trump claimed that 3 million people voted illegally, not that 3 million people 'did not vote legally', which is something entirely different. As that is a positive claim it is up to him to prove that claim, which he has not been able to provide a single shred of evidence for.

 

[sandorski]

Another idiot thinks CNN didn't cover pissgate.


You really are dumb. Proving that at least 3 million people didn't vote legally IS a negative.

...because it didn't, as explained to you already. CNN didn't report anything that was non-Factual.

 

[Grooveriding]

What a lost cause. This is what is eerie about the most indoctrinated Trump supporters. Their logic abilities are gone. His lies are seen as some sort of elaborate trick to try and help people understand his dogma, instead of just appalling lies from a man who is not of sound mind and below average mental abilities.

He really could shoot someone on 5th avenue and they'd hive mind their way to calling madness some sort of elaborate chess move.

No link to the one poll and date it was first reported on. Still believing reporting on the portions of a dossier that were confirmed while specifically not even mentioning the parts that were not and saying those omitted portions are unconfirmed is reporting them. And those things are enough to believe the MSM is fake news and it is more logical to believe what Trump, a habitual lying fool who can't even use English properly, is a better source of facts.

It's year one for these folks.