Indeed Trump seems well connected with the Jewish mob.
The "Yiddish connection" is largely an international syndicate, much like the Italian mafia. Whether one criminal is based in NYC or Moscow is of secondary importance.
Why don't you go through the rest of it instead of being so closed minded...you're on /r/conspiracy where people cite Infowars and Breitbart as sources.
That literally reads like a who's who of MSM propaganda outlets.
I mean, maybe it's all true, but sourcing from places like these actually bolsters the case that's it's all a bullshit nothing burger.
Don't forget, these are the same outlets that lied about 9/11 to get people to accept invading Afghanistan, the patriot act, the TSA etc
And lied about Wmds in Iraq so people would accept the invasion of that country. Oh yeah, and Saddams plan to ditch the petrodollar for the euro, that's not happening any more
And lied about Libya, so people would accept turning it from a place that had one of the highest standards of living in Africa, to a failed state run ny terrorists. Oh yeah, and his plan to create a anti-rothschild, anti-colonialst gold backed currency, that's not happening any more.
And are now lying about what is happening in Syria, lying about the real source of funding and training of groups like isis, the white helmets etc, lying about false flag chemical attacks etc etc
Oh yeah, and the Golon Heights, an area of Syria rich in mineral resources , is being occupied by Israel. Also the entire country lies in the path of a proposed pipeline to supply gas to Europe that would complete with Russian gas supply.
You guys could literally watch Trump and Putin fuck right in front of your face and would deny it.
Just because it came from /r/politics doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. You guys all come from T_D which is the most biased sub on Reddit and continuously cite Infowars or Breitbart as sources.
stop acting like "whataboutisms" can't be valid arguments.
You made the statement that "you people" could witness something and still deny it. The person you replied to shared an example of "you people" doing exactly that very thing. That not only destroyed your attack, but also showcases how ignorant and bias you actually are which then destroys your credibility
You literally did the same thing one comment up. So, you know that whataboutism is a fallacy, yet you also do it without shame. In other words, you are intentionally invoking logical fallacies to disrupt the discussion here. We can completely rule out your participating here in good faith, and this kind of nonsense needs to start leading to bans.
I am subbed to both /r/news and /r/worldnews and actually not even subbed to /r/politics...I just see it trending on 'all' every once and a while and click the links.
Then what are pulling comment from the latter for? You come off like you're digging for golden nuggets in a wasteland of partisan bullshit. Most in here are exiles or refugees from r/politics and have long-since written it off, so you're better off not starting a discussion with in the topic whatsoever.
Why are you being angry, divisive, and disruptive like this? Sounds like you don't want anyone talking about the facts, which is what you pretended to be doing with your original post.
You guys could literally watch Trump and Putin fuck right in front of your face and would deny it.
Beats the hell out of nuclear holocaust.
You guys all come from T_D
Irrelevant to whether what they say is true. And continues to try to divide everyone back into Republicans and Democrats so we won't unite against the bankers.
continuously cite Infowars or Breitbart as sources.
Also irrelevant. And you cited Christopher Steele as a source. The British spy who actually illegally influenced the election. How's that glass house?
Dude wtf look at my post history. Scrolling thru this subreddit and see an argument between Purple and some other guy, and then Pupil quotes a r/politics post to prove himself right so I replied back ROFL. Unreal shilling here and I hardly ever callout shills / believe in seeing them around
Be careful with that word (shhh + ill). I got banned 10 days for calling an obvious one out (was originally a permanent ban until I argued it down). This sub protects them more than us now...
I've rarely ever seen one and if I do I kinda brush it off incase I'm being paranoid or something, but damn this guy was in my feed three times in a row with all r/politics quotes... little suspicious!
Oh my god!!!!! Because it's not all fox news and breitbart ot must be lies, right?!
Well here's a newsflash for ya! All media outlets are biased. So these aren't things that the right would publish. With that being said, just because it was printed by a source you don't like, even if they have pro yes retractions on other stories (which all news outlets do eventually) it doesn't make everything they say true. They have a reputation to uphold. And the people working for them have jobs to keep. That means not printing straight up lies Constantly.
Newsflash! Fox and breitbart aren't the only alternatives to the guardian, Washington post etc.
And two wrongs don't make a right. That's Homer Simpson logic.
They have a reputation to uphold. And the people working for them have jobs to keep. That means not printing straight up lies Constantly.
History has shown that this is simply not true. MSM media on both sides if the false left/right paradigm have proven time and time again that they can lie constantly to push certain agendas, and it's outside most people's overton window to even consider questioning it.
I don't know why I even post on this sub anymore...people are literally bringing up Hillary randomly in this thread because they are scared this might bring light on Trump being corrupt. It's sad.
I would love if they took Hillary and Trump down...I just don't get what Hillary has to do with my post?
Some of the commenters think they are 'taking me down' by saying something about Hillary and I think it's funny.
Hillary is probably corrupt as fuck too and I would love to see any corrupt people in jail, but Hillary has nothing to do with this post and shouldn't even be mentioned.
I can't even believe you would try to understand the world around you by linking from 19 different journalistic outfits when you could easily be disproved by myuncle'sblogonhillary.com/maga
It's not unrelated. You are trying to create a narrative, but are sourcing it from know lying bullshit propaganda MSM outlets with zero credibility.
And again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that by doing this you are unwittingly bolstering the argument against what you are saying.
You accuse me of trying to create a narrative, but literally nothing you have said in this entire thread has anything to do with the OP. Something someone trying to create a narrative might do: try to continually derail conversations into other topics (the reliability of his sources (which you dismissed out of hand although there are 19 different ones), try to divert the conversation to a different topic (like the 4 COMPLETELY unrelated topics you tried to bring up))
So if he sourced from a blog or InfoWars are you saying it would be more credible?
What kinda logic is that? He brings an immaculate list of sources and you attack their credibility because they are legitimate media organizations from around the world? Then you deflect to 9/11, Libya and Syria?
You failed to answer the basic question: What is a legitimate source for you?
Most of those organizations have existed for over 100 years and won multiple awards and have been instrumental in breaking world changing news like Watergate. They have proven their credibility over centuries and decades.
You have failed to say what you find to be a legitimate source.
The fact remains, he sourced his story, he didnt make empty allegations he couldnt prove and you made an ad hominem attack and then deflected to completely different topics.
Most of those organizations have existed for over 100 years and won multiple awards and have been instrumental in breaking world changing news like Watergate.
Bob Woodward is an FBI asset and member of Scroll and Key, a Yale secret society similar to Skull and Bones.
"Broadly speaking, Watergate was a coup d’etat which was instrumental in laying the basis for the specific new type of authoritarian-totalitarian regime which now rules the United States. The purpose of the coup was to rearrange the dominant institutions of the US government so as to enhance their ability to carry out policies agreeable to the increasingly urgent dictates of the British-dominated Morgan- Rockefeller-Mellon-Harriman financier faction. The immediate beneficiaries of the coup have been that class of bureaucratic, technocratic administrators who have held the highest public offices, exercising power in many cases almost without interruption, since the days of the Watergate scandal. It is obvious that George Bush himself is one of the most prominent of such beneficiaries."
I'm assuming its credible only if it reinforces your beliefs.
Wow, that's pretty ridiculous word-twisting. Almost like you're just making personal attacks that have no relevance to the topic at hand to disrupt the discussion, and have no interest in actually contributing to the discussion. Take this nonsense somewhere else.
What makes Tarpley.net, a blog, more credible?
Maybe you should actually read the source before speaking. You can start with the fact that it's from a book.
You're the one that tried to disrupt the discussion by attacking the sources.
Sources which youve used in prior posts to reinforce your own posts.
I did read the source. Tarpley was a LaRouche stooge and whether Watergate was a CIA job or not doesnt change the fact the Washington post exposed it. It doesnt change the fact the NY Times exposed MKULTRA either. It also doesnt change the fact you've used those sources to back up claims youve made in other posts.
You're the one with no interest in contributing to the discussion, you're making ad hominem attacks against the sources and failing to tell us what you find to be credible sources.
You're the one that is trying to silence the discussion.
You're the one that tried to disrupt the discussion by attacking the sources.
TIL discussing Operation Mockingbird is a forum disruption tactic.
whether Watergate was a CIA job or not doesnt change the fact the Washington post exposed it.
It shows you that the mainstream media is a limited hangout. You can look at more recent examples like CIA agent Edward Snowden taking down the NSA after the NSA took out CIA director Petraeus.
you're making ad hominem attacks against the sources
And they're valid when I did them. The media does keep the truth out of view, and often lies. Are you familiar with the concept of an admission that hurts a party being admissible in court? The mainstream media is trustworthy when they admit things that harm the oligarchy.
You're attacking the credibility of any news source. Even when they include documentation and are corroborated by multiple outlets.
That's not accurate. I'm saying they often report the facts, but they also hide things that should be reported and often make things up. Such as the Steele dossier.
Parts of the Steele dossier have been corroborated.
The facts are the important part. That's the stuff critical thinkers drill down on, not the speculation and empty allegations. These articles included a lot of facts, documentation and corroboration.
Still a hypocrite by saying the sources are valid for your points but not anyone elses.
I guess you're simply attacking the sources because you don't like they implicate Trump in money laundering.
Actually, you're the one that is beyond help and refuse to believe in anything unless it fits your world view. Even when facts and documentation support the conclusions being made and you use the same sources to back up your own opinions.
Parts of the dossier have been corroborated under oath, that isnt a lie.
You never answered the question. You quoted two things I said and never really made any point. You attacked the credibility of the sources that supported the post, without making any reference to the documentation and facts, and never could say what is a credible source.
I think it's funny that you cant even form a reply using a complete sentence.
...It's not like they said, under Stalin "There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be."
....It's not like a former times reporter Daniel Simpson once said in an interview "Asked about how the censorship over such a vast organization could function, Simpson explained that "there are different processes at work." Citing his own experience, the self-styled “renegade” correspondent said that even in the Balkans, the Times had a pre-determined view of what happened. Editors were not interested in analyzing the tragic effects of Western military intervention, and they certainly were not open to exploring alternative explanations and views. "
But your right, because they reported on MKULTRA, they are immune to criticism and have the highest journalistic integrity
Are you interested in examples or methodology in determining one?
Because your tooth and nail defence of the warhawk government mouth piece New York times makes me think you are not really interested in expanding your mind and thinking outside the box.
I mean, it's strange that what I'm saying, in a conspiracy subreddit is proving to be so contentious.
I would have thought that the MSM being propaganda is conspiracy 101.
Jesus christ dude the bongs are affecting your memory hardcore, maybe switch to outdoor weed.
My point was....
That literally reads like a who's who of MSM propaganda outlets.
I mean, maybe it's all true, but sourcing from places like these actually bolsters the case that's it's all a bullshit nothing burger.
So despite the appearance of being 'well sourced', if something is sourced exclusively from know lying bullshit propaganda MSM outlets then it should be taken with a grain of salt, because given their track records there could definitely an agenda and spin on it besides 'journalism'
Oh, yes, I'm well aware. You can just claim its a MSM source and therefore it has no more credibility in your mind despite the documentation, facts and evidence supporting the story. You'll just deny all that stuff.
Convenient little fantasy world you've carved out. You can disbelieve everything you want and embrace some blog because it tells you what you want to hear.
Still repeating these lines makes me realise that the intention of my original comment still hasn't been comprehended by you. I feel like a broken record.
Convenient little fantasy world you've carved out.
Lol. Turn on my TV. Open up my newspaper. Let my entire perception of reality, my entire understanding of the geopolitical machinations of the world and basically my entire world-view be shaped by these MSM outlets.
And if anyone one dares question the narrative , they are just a crazy conspiracy theorist.
And if any journalist questions the narrative, they just work for some silly blog. Because there are definitely no journalists outside of the MSM sphere that have any respect at all.
I mean, these newspapers have a long history, have won Pulitzer prizes. They have documentation, facts and evidence. They should never be questioned. There only motivation is the make the public more informed. They would never lie or have an agenda.
Yes, I am aware and well read. You're denying the evidence from 20+ sources that include documentation and facts.
Your original comment has been comprehended. You refuse to believe anything you believe to be from the MSM regardless of the evidence and facts provided.
You watch Tucker Carlson and read opinion blogs for information. Many that make claims with no evidence whatsoever. You'll believe the empty claims, but claims with evidence, that's just too far a stretch for you.
Question the narrative, but the facts are the facts. They exist independently of the narrative. Critical thinkers know how to separate the facts from the opinions and narrative. You clearly do not think critically if you think Tucker Carlson's editorial show is actually real news. How many times has he retracted bogus allegations this week alone?
Opinion blogs are not journalism, so you calling them journalism clearly shows YOU are the one who is NOT AWARE of the difference between hard journalism and editorial/opinion blogs.
Claims should always be questioned if they dont provide evidence. The evidence is what proves the claims. This post had 20 sources with hard facts and evidence to prove the claims. Those claims were corroborated across multiple organizations. The sources were verified and you're one of the few idiots choosing to remain ignorant to those facts.
Your agenda is to discredit anything that might show Trump is corrupt despite Trump implicating himself in obstruction of justice on national television and his son admitting to collusion with Russia during the election to get illegally obtained emails in order to influence the election. Even when Trump or Trump Jr admits on TV or Twitter you'll still deny it.
The facts and evidence determine the credibility of the claim and those sources listed by the OP had facts to back them up. Facts you refuse to even look at.
You refuse to believe anything you believe to be from the MSM
Nope, you still haven't comprehended my original comment... Smh
You watch Tucker Carlson
Nope, fox news is part of the MSM too, keep up.
read opinion blogs
Wtf is an opinion blog? Never came across these before, but I'd like to check them out if you can give me some examples.
Opinion blogs are not journalism, so you calling them journalism clearly shows
No need to put words in my mouth. Creating strawman arguments only weakens your argument
Question the narrative, but the facts are the facts.
So I guess all the examples of 'facts' from the nyt that proved to be bullshit went over your head. Wait... Was that facts or narrative?
hard journalism
So in your mind, everything outside of the MSM media is not journalism?
Even when Trump or Trump Jr admits on TV or Twitter you'll still deny it.
Again, no need to put words in my mouth
Your agenda is to discredit anything that might show Trump is corrupt
Are you are really presuming a lot here. Because I question the track record and integrity of the guardian and the ny times I must be a trump devotee with a maga hat on. Lol
Facts you refuse to even look at
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus dude, this is proving really hard to get through to you. I never claimed I read through all the articles. I never claimed that the accusations weren't true.
All I said was the all the sources referenced were all known bullshit propaganda MSM outlets with track records of lying. Thats it. That's the only claim I made. You've created all these other claims and agendas yourself and projected them on me.
Put it this way, if a known liar tell the truth once, it doesn't make it a lie. It also doesn't mean they don't deserve their reputation as a liar in the past and should now be blindly believed.
You really seem to be missing my original point.
All I was saying was that by sourcing exclusively from MSM outlets, you actually inadvertently bolster the argument against you, especially in a conspiracy subreddit.
Even the OP deleted his post because he realised the same thing.
"All I said was the all the sources referenced were all known bullshit propaganda MSM outlets "
"I never claimed I read through all the articles. I never claimed that the accusations weren't true."
Ok, so read the 20+ sources and the supporting evidence, facts and documentation before discrediting them. The evidence and facts are what is important.
And tell us specifically which sources you find credible.
The OP deleted his post because guys like you, even when presented with a list of 20+ sources with supporting evidence, facts and documentation that have been corroborated by multiple sources and legal filings refuse to believe anything.
You really just don't get what I'm saying at all. In one ear out the other.
Ok, so read the 20+ sources and the supporting evidence, facts and documentation before discrediting them. The evidence and facts are what is important.
I'm not saying that every single fact within all 20 articles is wrong. I'm saying by ONLY quoting known bullshit propaganda MSM outlets that you give the IMPRESSION that it's bullshit and actually give more credibility to the other side of the argument.
This was the thrust of my original comment and no matter how many times I repeat it, it not sinking in, as shown by your ' ldenying the facts ' comments
Again, if a known liar tells the truth once, doesn't mean it's a lie.
multiple outlets
This doesn't mean anything. There are multiple branches of the MSM, and all of them engage in bullshit, fabrications, cover-ups, psychological warfare and generally keeping the public uninformed and pacified towards the actions of the powers that be.
Again, this really is conspiracy theory 101.
And again, this doesn't mean that EVERY SINGLE THING they have ever said is factually inaccurate. Propaganda is more complicated than that.
As for credible resources, I'd recommend globalresearch.ca, activist post and the Corbett report. And I respect Eva Bartlett and John pilger as journalists.
But you know what, if someone presented me evidence that they had knowingly published 'fake news' and lies on multiple occasions (like I did with the ny times) I wouldn't just put my fingers in my ears and scream 'LALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU THEY ARE RESPECTABLE JOURNALISM EVERYTHING IS OPINION BLOGS LALALA' and would actually question my trust of them.
Because that is how credibility and reputation works if you are a critical thinking
In the real world a list of 20 articles from reputable organizations would not be considered propaganda. It's only in your world does it give the impression that its bullshit.
You've insulated yourself in a place where you can pick and choose what you want to believe regardless of the evidence presented. Calling a psy op or a coverup or propaganda is just your excuses for why you decide not to believe it.
You couldnt even tell me what a credible source is. You're rejecting all the sources and all the hard evidence and legal documentation based on a subjective impression. When you finally start to tell me what you call credible resources you reference globalresearch.ca, activist post and corbett report, all of them blogs. Eva Bartlett works for RT. How's that for irony, claiming all the MSM is propaganda and you're trusting a Russian blogger working for Russian state media for your information. I guess I can understand why you want to deny Donald Trump was involved in money laundering with Russia based on the sources you use.
We've been been over this. With long track records of lying, cheerleading for war, propaganda and deception, the only people who consider them reputable are idiots.
I guess I can understand why you want to deny Donald Trump was involved in money laundering
Jesus christ dude. I was trying to be nice before but, ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? Either that or you are purposely being disingenuous. I'm getting tired of repeating myself over and over explaining why I never said that.
Or perhaps all those bongs have given you brain damage. I mean, you were telling me I watched Tucker Carlson when that was some one else, is this all a bit confusing for you? Or perhaps trying desperately to hold on to the blue pill that the narrative and reality presented by TV news and newspapers is the truth and they are Honourable journalists. I remember when I realised that TV news is bullshit, it was difficult to comprehend in the beginning.
you reference globalresearch.ca, activist post and corbett report, all of them blogs
I hate to break it to you, but it's 2018, most real journalism is in the internet. These are websites with news stories and analysis. I think it's funny you disregard anything that isn't a newspaper that's 100 years old or on television. Wake up dude! These people are information gatekeepers.
And yeah Eva Bartlett is not Russian, and she doesn't 'work for rt', she is an independent freelance journalist who has contributed to many places including rt. She has extensive on the ground experience reporting from Syria
But look, here is one of your anointed truth tellers, the guardian, trying to white wash and defend known terrorists associates the white helmets. And who wrote the article, a technology editor from San Francisco who has never set foot in there and knows nothing about Syria.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories
This is standard behaviour for what you think is a 'reputable'
So when you post links to the the guardian in a conspiracy sub, EVEN IF WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS TRUE, IT GIVES THE IMPRESSION ITS BULLSHIT BECAUSE OF THEIR PAST BEHAVIOUR (maybe it will get through this time...fingers crossed)
Or maybe you are just trolling me at this point. I find it hard to believe someone who is 'well read' could find it so difficult to grasp simple concepts
You're rejecting all the.... hard evidence and legal documentation
The NY Times exposed MKULTRA. How are they not credible? The Washington Post broke Watergate and the Pentagon Papers. These organizations have confirmed many conspiracies with actual evidence and documentation.
You also didnt tell me what you find to be acceptable news organizations.
Despite the fact these stories are backed up by facts and evidence corroborated across multiple organizations you still dont find them credible.
The irony here is in your own comment history, you use many of these organizations as legitimate sources when they reinforce your beliefs.
"The elite media set a framework within which others operate. If you are watching the Associated Press, who grind out a constant flow of news, in the mid-afternoon it breaks and there is something that comes along every day that says “Notice to Editors: Tomorrow’s New York Times is going to have the following stories on the front page.” The point of that is, if you’re an editor of a newspaper in Dayton, Ohio and you don’t have the resources to figure out what the news is, or you don’t want to think about it anyway, this tells you what the news is. These are the stories for the quarter page that you are going to devote to something other than local affairs or diverting your audience. These are the stories that you put there because that’s what the New York Times tells us is what you’re supposed to care about tomorrow..
The real mass media are basically trying to divert people. Let them do something else, but don’t bother us (us being the people who run the show). Let them get interested in professional sports, for example. Let everybody be crazed about professional sports or sex scandals or the personalities and their problems or something like that. Anything, as long as it isn’t serious. Of course, the serious stuff is for the big guys. “We” take care of that...
What are the elite media, the agenda-setting ones? The New York Times and CBS, for example. Well, first of all, they are major, very profitable, corporations. Furthermore, most of them are either linked to, or outright owned by, much bigger corporations, like General Electric, Westinghouse, and so on. They are way up at the top of the power structure of the private economy which is a very tyrannical structure. Corporations are basically tyrannies, hierarchic, controled from above. If you don’t like what they are doing you get out. The major media are just part of that system."
More distractions and still avoiding the direct question of what is a credible source in your mind?
If you want to know what news sources I trust, just ask. You don't have to add all this nastiness to every comment you make in here. Doesn't all the negativity make you feel bad after a while?
I regularly check zerohedge, Executive Intelligence Review, Corbett Report, and watch Tucker Carlson every night. Read lots of other stuff that gets posted on content aggregators like this. EIR is cultish but highly accurate and has a 4 decade track record of scooping the rest of the media.
I asked 4 times already and you didnt answer, you just doubled down on how all media is not credible because its owned by corporations. I assume public outlets like NPR and PBS are not credible because they operate on government funding. You refuse to answer the question yet say these sources are totally credible when you cite them.
I'm not being nasty here. You're the one saying we cant believe anything we read and then claim Tucker Carlson and conspiracy blogs that frequently make claims without evidence are legit.
After asking you multiple times which sources you find credible you finally come back with Tucker Carlson on Fox News, Zerohedge and 2 other conspiracy blogs. They have all made allegations without proof.
When you cant win by attacking the sources, you attack the person. When you chant "Lie, lie, lie", despite an entire comment chain of comments that contradicts you, it is you being pathetic.
Tucker Carlson is credible. Best news on TV right now. Have you actually watched it or do you just dismiss him because muh Fox News and you still identify with a party and dismiss anyone from the other party? He was all over the Las Vegas coverup.
...you’ve....Holy shit you’ve done it! You’ve broken the code! You’ve uncovered the mother of all conspiracies!! GIVE THIS MAN THE FUCKING NOBEL OF ALL KNOWLEDGE NOW GODDAMNIT!!!
Clinton Foundation accepted over $250,000,000 from Foreign Govts.
In the hacked email from Podesta on Wikileaks, it clearly shows Podesta and Crooked Hillary's staff biting the nails over their foreign bribery becoming known to the American people.
In that email link you literally have Joel Beneson, who was Hillary's 2016 Campaign Strategist saying shut it down immediately stop accepting money from foreign govts until Hillary wins the election. Podesta and Cheryl Mills chime in replying with their ideas about how to propagandize a way to cover it up!
And that's just one example. I can literally find 50 more Podesta emails proving shameless naked corruption and bribery at the Clinton Foundation.
That is the spreadsheet of all the hundreds of donors to the Clinton Foundation, as revealed by Guccifer 2.0.
Scroll to the very last line, add up the column for "Total Amount Donated" it's over $200 MILLION DOLLARS.
But let's talk about Ivanka and a few apartments in Panama. Everything you have cited is chump change compared to high roller Crooked Hillary.
I could keep going. But it doesn't matter anymore. Trump won. Crooked Hillary lost because she was the worst candidate in history.
You can keep fighting that battle that Crooked Hillary should have won, you can enter into a mystical and hallucinatory alt-timeline where she did win, and you can imagine all the "what if's" that would have turned out different.
Perhaps not, but your post and comment history suggests you are operating with a complete bias. Leads me to believe you are not looking at this objectively.
How can this guy call out someone for working at shareblue and not have his comment deleted. I thought we weren't allowed to call people shills on here. Where are the mods? Are we going to put this thread in Contest mode too?
Haha I LOVE THIS POST! Not only does is the email chain that is used to prove how evil Hillary Clinton is literally say "hey this is bad we should find a way to put a stop to it!", but it doesn't address literally any of the claims made by OP! That is an impressive double whammy.
You can link to Donalds page all you want doesn’t change the fact that modern journalism isn’t about facts it’s about clicks/views. They don’t care if they are right or wrong it’s about being provocative and making a story hit the mainstream. Dude your on a conspiracy page dedicated to saying the government and people who deliver the news to you are liars. Then you use those exact people to try and prove your point. It’s a tough sell and I’ll tell you this there are more people here that probably agree with me than with you. I appreciate the post and the effort you put in but If your gonna use sources like these especially in current times with how these entities are viewed all I can say is good luck in this sub.
So, what you've identified are two names. Felix Slater and Rybolovlev. You are positing that they are laundering with Trump but you haven't explained any collusion or election interference.
If I recall, Ryoblovlev most recently was targeted by the Russian government over someone help escape their clutches and they tried to financially punish him by crashing his shares of the bank in Cyprus or something. Broad strokes, there, because it's been a while since I've looked into it. Point being, if anything, that is evidence Trump is not working with the Russians as they used Vekselberg to out him.
Let's do a quick comparison, because I'm not saying you are wrong. I am going to say that I have a much better sourced article than this that uses primary source documentation to PROVE 100% that the DNC revenue stream and people like Media Matters have Russian rubles in their banks and they used it to sway the election.
Ruben Vardanyan, whose job is to make Putin's friends rich, runs an investment firm, Troika Dialog that paid The Podesta Group and the Podesta Group failed to disclose these ties, making it a FARA violation. We know this because of the LD 1 disclosure form and the Panama Papers. Two separate sources that independently corroborate each other.
Ruben Vardanyan also paid John Podesta through a front known as Joule Unlimited. We know this because of his leaked emails and the contract included in those emails. John Podesta has yet to disclose this and it is a violation of the FARA rules, again.
Both Podestas would be in jail if the law applied to them equally with Manafort.
This is the tip of the iceberg, because I have a lot more primary source evidence, but Ruben Vardanyan is the easiest to understand where the evidence is publicly available. Nothing secret. No taking anyone's word for it.
They used their funds through Center for American Progress, Comet Ping Pong, Media Matters, Correct the Record and Shareblue to influence social media through astroturfing through the Internet and even directly instructed news outlets on what to report.
THIS IS WHAT COLLUSION LOOKS LIKE.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd like to see something more than just biased news articles where I know John Podesta can call or email and just tell them what to say.
It's evident that OP has a hard-on for boosting his self-esteem by damaging Trump. He's using fake news sources that slander trump to support his slanderous premise. What a stupid guy.
Damaging trump is all liberals lust over because they are so low in self-esteem they need to bring better people down to feel good about themselves. It makes them feel like a savior, but in reality what they're doing won't boost their self-esteem. They will always be a piece of shit loser because their self-esteem revolves around the suffering of others.
Boosting your self-esteem the functional way is when it revolves around accomplishing things in your life independent of others. OP is a moron, downvote and move on everybody.
I'm an independent that leans left because of everything that has happened in the past 3 years...actually when I first voted, I was registered Republican in Nebraska, but sorry that doesn't fit your narrative :(
Political ideology has evolved, it's no longer about ideas and beliefs, it's now IDENTITY POLITICS.
Liberalism is synonymous for virtue signaling, entitlement, low self-esteem, and dysfunctionality. YOU are a liberal, not by the old definition, but by the NEW definition. You voting differently doesn't change your identity politics.
They will always be losers because their self-esteem revolves around the suffering of others.
He says in a 3 paragraph post where he does nothing but ad-hominem attack and make ridiculous blanket generalizations about "liberals". How much of your self esteem is tied to trying to make "liberals" look stupid?
Awful lot of people who apparently only look at the name of the media outlet and make a decision on its veracity from that. If you chose not to read it and decided it's a lie simply because it's from a media outlet you dislike, you're intellectually dishonest and misinformed.
What does this have to do with Trump-Russia collusion? Nothing.
Trump might be dirty in terms of finances? Wow, shocker! 😪
It has been clear the collusion crap was an entry path into investigating beyond just that and taking him and others down via things that have nothing to do with collusion.
How can this guy call out someone for working at shareblue and not have his comment deleted. I thought we weren't allowed to call people shills on here. Where are the mods? Are we going to put this thread in Contest mode too?
Haha I LOVE THIS POST! Not only does is the email chain that is used to prove how evil Hillary Clinton is literally say "hey this is bad we should find a way to put a stop to it!", but it doesn't address literally any of the claims made by OP! That is an impressive double whammy.
I asked 4 times already and you didnt answer, you just doubled down on how all media is not credible because its owned by corporations. I assume public outlets like NPR and PBS are not credible because they operate on government funding. You refuse to answer the question yet say these sources are totally credible when you cite them.
I'm not being nasty here. You're the one saying we cant believe anything we read and then claim Tucker Carlson and conspiracy blogs that frequently make claims without evidence are legit.
124 comments
1 jswilson99 2018-02-28
Trump is an Israeli agent
1 Coincidence-Theorist 2018-02-28
Trump is absolutely under israeli control. No doubt about it
1 katarine- 2018-02-28
Trump is a Cuban agent...
1 daysOFdelusion 2018-02-28
Trump is agent Orange for 'muricans.
1 murphy212 2018-02-28
Indeed Trump seems well connected with the Jewish mob.
The "Yiddish connection" is largely an international syndicate, much like the Italian mafia. Whether one criminal is based in NYC or Moscow is of secondary importance.
1 justinjj1 2018-02-28
Rachel Maddown, NBC, NPR, WAPO, NYT. Nice sources, lol.
1 4ward2death 2018-02-28
infowars, breitbart, twitter.com, zerohedge, lol.
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-02-28
How about you read the articles? Maddow can go away but all of the other sources are at least good...where do you get your stories? Infowars?
You realize that WaPo and NYT were the ones who broke the Nixon Water-Gate case and the Pentagon Papers, right?
It wasn't Alex fucking Jones.
1 delfinko44 2018-02-28
Yea also when journalists had integrity.
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-02-28
Actually people like you were claiming "fake news" back then too with the WaPo and NYT....but that doesn't exactly fit your narrative.
Nixon even claimed there was a "witch hunt" before he got knocked down...sound familiar? https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/968468176639004672
1 sigurross 2018-02-28
WaPo and NYT are the bastion of truth and no dissemination is required when reading their articles?
1 hangingonbya--thread 2018-02-28
Doesn't fit your narrative huh?
1 DrStevenPoop 2018-02-28
This isn't "proof" of anything. It's a massive Gish gallop.
1 katarine- 2018-02-28
Glanced at your post, saw Rachel Maddow, gave up. She shouldn't be in anyone's proof text, imo.
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-02-28
Why don't you go through the rest of it instead of being so closed minded...you're on /r/conspiracy where people cite Infowars and Breitbart as sources.
Maddow sucks, but the rest of these are legit.
1 claptronic 2018-02-28
Jesus there's no way you threw out 18 other sources in favor of one. You should rethink your own thinking
1 dammitjenkins20cars 2018-02-28
That literally reads like a who's who of MSM propaganda outlets.
I mean, maybe it's all true, but sourcing from places like these actually bolsters the case that's it's all a bullshit nothing burger.
Don't forget, these are the same outlets that lied about 9/11 to get people to accept invading Afghanistan, the patriot act, the TSA etc
And lied about Wmds in Iraq so people would accept the invasion of that country. Oh yeah, and Saddams plan to ditch the petrodollar for the euro, that's not happening any more
And lied about Libya, so people would accept turning it from a place that had one of the highest standards of living in Africa, to a failed state run ny terrorists. Oh yeah, and his plan to create a anti-rothschild, anti-colonialst gold backed currency, that's not happening any more.
And are now lying about what is happening in Syria, lying about the real source of funding and training of groups like isis, the white helmets etc, lying about false flag chemical attacks etc etc
Oh yeah, and the Golon Heights, an area of Syria rich in mineral resources , is being occupied by Israel. Also the entire country lies in the path of a proposed pipeline to supply gas to Europe that would complete with Russian gas supply.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-02-28
It's also a comment his dude found in r/politics, lmao...
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-02-28
You guys could literally watch Trump and Putin fuck right in front of your face and would deny it.
Just because it came from /r/politics doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. You guys all come from T_D which is the most biased sub on Reddit and continuously cite Infowars or Breitbart as sources.
1 truguy 2018-02-28
You guys could literally watch Hillary sell uranium to Russia and not believe it.
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-02-28
What does Hillary have to do with my post? Fuck Hillary.
1 seeking101 2018-02-28
stop acting like "whataboutisms" can't be valid arguments.
You made the statement that "you people" could witness something and still deny it. The person you replied to shared an example of "you people" doing exactly that very thing. That not only destroyed your attack, but also showcases how ignorant and bias you actually are which then destroys your credibility
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-02-28
It did neither...if you actually read the post and weren't so biased, maybe you would learn something buddy :)
1 seeking101 2018-02-28
his comment isnt about hilary either, its about how "you people" can see something and still deny jt
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-02-28
You literally did the same thing one comment up. So, you know that whataboutism is a fallacy, yet you also do it without shame. In other words, you are intentionally invoking logical fallacies to disrupt the discussion here. We can completely rule out your participating here in good faith, and this kind of nonsense needs to start leading to bans.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-02-28
Yes, just because it came from r/politics means it doesn't have merit.
That place is a fucking cesspool of bacteria and parasites lingering on the rotting corpse of their dearly beloved queen.
Anything and everything in that sub is not to be trusted. Period.
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-02-28
How can you say that and not even read through the actual articles? Do people call you Osmium?
1 TooManyCookz 2018-02-28
What a burn! I bet you found that in r/edacted as well!
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-02-28
What is that sub? It doesn't let me look at it...I actually just googled the densest element and found it myself buddy :)
1 TooManyCookz 2018-02-28
Just another name for r/politics. Try r/news or even r/worldnews for less biased discussion.
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-02-28
I am subbed to both /r/news and /r/worldnews and actually not even subbed to /r/politics...I just see it trending on 'all' every once and a while and click the links.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-02-28
Then what are pulling comment from the latter for? You come off like you're digging for golden nuggets in a wasteland of partisan bullshit. Most in here are exiles or refugees from r/politics and have long-since written it off, so you're better off not starting a discussion with in the topic whatsoever.
1 TheGreatOni19 2018-02-28
Try burying your head further in the sand. I bet hilarys indictment is in there.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-02-28
My head isn't in the sand just because isn't up Hillary's ass.
1 dammitjenkins20cars 2018-02-28
This!
1 psyderr 2018-02-28
This sub isn’t like T_D at all.
You prob still think there’s WMDs in Iraq huh?
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-02-28
How the hell do you jump to that conclusion jfc...
1 psyderr 2018-02-28
Because the mainstream media was pushing the same type of propaganda about going to war in iraq
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-02-28
Why are you being angry, divisive, and disruptive like this? Sounds like you don't want anyone talking about the facts, which is what you pretended to be doing with your original post.
Beats the hell out of nuclear holocaust.
Irrelevant to whether what they say is true. And continues to try to divide everyone back into Republicans and Democrats so we won't unite against the bankers.
Also irrelevant. And you cited Christopher Steele as a source. The British spy who actually illegally influenced the election. How's that glass house?
1 lambosambo 2018-02-28
Dude wtf look at my post history. Scrolling thru this subreddit and see an argument between Purple and some other guy, and then Pupil quotes a r/politics post to prove himself right so I replied back ROFL. Unreal shilling here and I hardly ever callout shills / believe in seeing them around
1 TooManyCookz 2018-02-28
Be careful with that word (shhh + ill). I got banned 10 days for calling an obvious one out (was originally a permanent ban until I argued it down). This sub protects them more than us now...
1 lambosambo 2018-02-28
I've rarely ever seen one and if I do I kinda brush it off incase I'm being paranoid or something, but damn this guy was in my feed three times in a row with all r/politics quotes... little suspicious!
1 TooManyCookz 2018-02-28
Yea I saw that. He’s totally transparent. At best, he’s a simple gullible pawn giving far too much credence to MSM’s narrative.
1 TheGreatOni19 2018-02-28
Oh my god!!!!! Because it's not all fox news and breitbart ot must be lies, right?!
Well here's a newsflash for ya! All media outlets are biased. So these aren't things that the right would publish. With that being said, just because it was printed by a source you don't like, even if they have pro yes retractions on other stories (which all news outlets do eventually) it doesn't make everything they say true. They have a reputation to uphold. And the people working for them have jobs to keep. That means not printing straight up lies Constantly.
1 dammitjenkins20cars 2018-02-28
Newsflash! Fox and breitbart aren't the only alternatives to the guardian, Washington post etc.
And two wrongs don't make a right. That's Homer Simpson logic.
History has shown that this is simply not true. MSM media on both sides if the false left/right paradigm have proven time and time again that they can lie constantly to push certain agendas, and it's outside most people's overton window to even consider questioning it.
1 psyderr 2018-02-28
This isn’t right vs left. This is rich corporatists vs everyone else
1 Most-Obvious-Comment 2018-02-28
TLDR of this comment: Everything is a lie so this sourced post is too without ever talking about any of the facts or arguments presented.
1 dammitjenkins20cars 2018-02-28
You seem to be missing my point
1 Most-Obvious-Comment 2018-02-28
You spent one throwaway line saying maybe it's true and then 4 paragraphs talking about completely unrelated things and you think I missed the point?
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-02-28
I don't know why I even post on this sub anymore...people are literally bringing up Hillary randomly in this thread because they are scared this might bring light on Trump being corrupt. It's sad.
1 dammitjenkins20cars 2018-02-28
This is going to blow your mind....
Maybe Hillary, trump and the MSM are all corrupt
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-02-28
I would love if they took Hillary and Trump down...I just don't get what Hillary has to do with my post?
Some of the commenters think they are 'taking me down' by saying something about Hillary and I think it's funny.
Hillary is probably corrupt as fuck too and I would love to see any corrupt people in jail, but Hillary has nothing to do with this post and shouldn't even be mentioned.
1 Most-Obvious-Comment 2018-02-28
This is going to blow your mind: "Maybe Hillary, trump and the MSM are all corrupt" this could be true, and it still wouldn't be topical to OP
1 dammitjenkins20cars 2018-02-28
Trump being corrupt wasn't topical to the OP?
1 Most-Obvious-Comment 2018-02-28
That's like you posted a list of the President and said "The President isn't the topic of the OP?"
1 Most-Obvious-Comment 2018-02-28
I can't even believe you would try to understand the world around you by linking from 19 different journalistic outfits when you could easily be disproved by myuncle'sblogonhillary.com/maga
1 dammitjenkins20cars 2018-02-28
It's not unrelated. You are trying to create a narrative, but are sourcing it from know lying bullshit propaganda MSM outlets with zero credibility.
And again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that by doing this you are unwittingly bolstering the argument against what you are saying.
So yes, you missed the point.
1 Most-Obvious-Comment 2018-02-28
You accuse me of trying to create a narrative, but literally nothing you have said in this entire thread has anything to do with the OP. Something someone trying to create a narrative might do: try to continually derail conversations into other topics (the reliability of his sources (which you dismissed out of hand although there are 19 different ones), try to divert the conversation to a different topic (like the 4 COMPLETELY unrelated topics you tried to bring up))
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
So if he sourced from a blog or InfoWars are you saying it would be more credible?
What kinda logic is that? He brings an immaculate list of sources and you attack their credibility because they are legitimate media organizations from around the world? Then you deflect to 9/11, Libya and Syria?
1 dammitjenkins20cars 2018-02-28
This made me chuckle.
So let's recap...
All journalism is either
-CNN, the guardian, Washington post
-Fox and breitbart
-Infowars and blogs
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
You failed to answer the basic question: What is a legitimate source for you?
Most of those organizations have existed for over 100 years and won multiple awards and have been instrumental in breaking world changing news like Watergate. They have proven their credibility over centuries and decades.
You have failed to say what you find to be a legitimate source.
The fact remains, he sourced his story, he didnt make empty allegations he couldnt prove and you made an ad hominem attack and then deflected to completely different topics.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-02-28
Bob Woodward is an FBI asset and member of Scroll and Key, a Yale secret society similar to Skull and Bones.
Watergate was a CIA operation:
"Broadly speaking, Watergate was a coup d’etat which was instrumental in laying the basis for the specific new type of authoritarian-totalitarian regime which now rules the United States. The purpose of the coup was to rearrange the dominant institutions of the US government so as to enhance their ability to carry out policies agreeable to the increasingly urgent dictates of the British-dominated Morgan- Rockefeller-Mellon-Harriman financier faction. The immediate beneficiaries of the coup have been that class of bureaucratic, technocratic administrators who have held the highest public offices, exercising power in many cases almost without interruption, since the days of the Watergate scandal. It is obvious that George Bush himself is one of the most prominent of such beneficiaries."
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
In your own posts you use the same organizations as valid sources.
So its somewhat hypocritical that you keep attacking the sources.
You also refuse to tell me what a credible source is in your mind. I'm assuming its credible only if it reinforces your beliefs.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-02-28
Wow, that's pretty ridiculous word-twisting. Almost like you're just making personal attacks that have no relevance to the topic at hand to disrupt the discussion, and have no interest in actually contributing to the discussion. Take this nonsense somewhere else.
Maybe you should actually read the source before speaking. You can start with the fact that it's from a book.
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
You're the one that tried to disrupt the discussion by attacking the sources.
Sources which youve used in prior posts to reinforce your own posts.
I did read the source. Tarpley was a LaRouche stooge and whether Watergate was a CIA job or not doesnt change the fact the Washington post exposed it. It doesnt change the fact the NY Times exposed MKULTRA either. It also doesnt change the fact you've used those sources to back up claims youve made in other posts.
You're the one with no interest in contributing to the discussion, you're making ad hominem attacks against the sources and failing to tell us what you find to be credible sources.
You're the one that is trying to silence the discussion.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-02-28
TIL discussing Operation Mockingbird is a forum disruption tactic.
It shows you that the mainstream media is a limited hangout. You can look at more recent examples like CIA agent Edward Snowden taking down the NSA after the NSA took out CIA director Petraeus.
And they're valid when I did them. The media does keep the truth out of view, and often lies. Are you familiar with the concept of an admission that hurts a party being admissible in court? The mainstream media is trustworthy when they admit things that harm the oligarchy.
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
You're attacking the credibility of any news source. Even when they include documentation and are corroborated by multiple outlets.
"And they're valid when I did them." Like I thought, they are only valid in your mind when they back up your opinions.
You're a hypocrite.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-02-28
That's not accurate. I'm saying they often report the facts, but they also hide things that should be reported and often make things up. Such as the Steele dossier.
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
Parts of the Steele dossier have been corroborated.
The facts are the important part. That's the stuff critical thinkers drill down on, not the speculation and empty allegations. These articles included a lot of facts, documentation and corroboration.
Still a hypocrite by saying the sources are valid for your points but not anyone elses.
I guess you're simply attacking the sources because you don't like they implicate Trump in money laundering.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-02-28
You're beyond help.
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
Actually, you're the one that is beyond help and refuse to believe in anything unless it fits your world view. Even when facts and documentation support the conclusions being made and you use the same sources to back up your own opinions.
Parts of the dossier have been corroborated under oath, that isnt a lie.
1 dammitjenkins20cars 2018-02-28
You seem confused, you are replying to two different people here hehe
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
You never answered the question. You quoted two things I said and never really made any point. You attacked the credibility of the sources that supported the post, without making any reference to the documentation and facts, and never could say what is a credible source.
I think it's funny that you cant even form a reply using a complete sentence.
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
Who'd believe the NY Times, right?
I mean, they exposed a program called MKULTRA dealing with brainwashing of all things.
1 dammitjenkins20cars 2018-02-28
I don't know why anyone would question the ny times journalistic integrity...
It's not like they....
...Printed lies about Iraq in the lead to war, which they retracted https://mobile.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html
...admitted they lied about Assad gassing his own people, leading up to the war there
https://consortiumnews.com/2013/12/29/nyt-backs-off-its-syria-sarin-analysis/
...lied about photographic evidence relating to the Russia / Ukraine conflict
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/23/nyt-retracts-russian-photo-scoop/
...It's not like they said, under Stalin "There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be."
....It's not like a former times reporter Daniel Simpson once said in an interview "Asked about how the censorship over such a vast organization could function, Simpson explained that "there are different processes at work." Citing his own experience, the self-styled “renegade” correspondent said that even in the Balkans, the Times had a pre-determined view of what happened. Editors were not interested in analyzing the tragic effects of Western military intervention, and they certainly were not open to exploring alternative explanations and views. "
But your right, because they reported on MKULTRA, they are immune to criticism and have the highest journalistic integrity
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
Still didnt answer the question of what a credible source is.
1 dammitjenkins20cars 2018-02-28
Are you interested in examples or methodology in determining one?
Because your tooth and nail defence of the warhawk government mouth piece New York times makes me think you are not really interested in expanding your mind and thinking outside the box.
I mean, it's strange that what I'm saying, in a conspiracy subreddit is proving to be so contentious.
I would have thought that the MSM being propaganda is conspiracy 101.
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
What you're saying is you refuse to believe a well sourced story with documentation.
1 dammitjenkins20cars 2018-02-28
Jesus christ dude the bongs are affecting your memory hardcore, maybe switch to outdoor weed.
My point was....
So despite the appearance of being 'well sourced', if something is sourced exclusively from know lying bullshit propaganda MSM outlets then it should be taken with a grain of salt, because given their track records there could definitely an agenda and spin on it besides 'journalism'
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
Oh, yes, I'm well aware. You can just claim its a MSM source and therefore it has no more credibility in your mind despite the documentation, facts and evidence supporting the story. You'll just deny all that stuff.
Convenient little fantasy world you've carved out. You can disbelieve everything you want and embrace some blog because it tells you what you want to hear.
1 dammitjenkins20cars 2018-02-28
No you are not aware.
Still repeating these lines makes me realise that the intention of my original comment still hasn't been comprehended by you. I feel like a broken record.
Lol. Turn on my TV. Open up my newspaper. Let my entire perception of reality, my entire understanding of the geopolitical machinations of the world and basically my entire world-view be shaped by these MSM outlets.
And if anyone one dares question the narrative , they are just a crazy conspiracy theorist.
And if any journalist questions the narrative, they just work for some silly blog. Because there are definitely no journalists outside of the MSM sphere that have any respect at all.
I mean, these newspapers have a long history, have won Pulitzer prizes. They have documentation, facts and evidence. They should never be questioned. There only motivation is the make the public more informed. They would never lie or have an agenda.
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
Yes, I am aware and well read. You're denying the evidence from 20+ sources that include documentation and facts.
Your original comment has been comprehended. You refuse to believe anything you believe to be from the MSM regardless of the evidence and facts provided.
You watch Tucker Carlson and read opinion blogs for information. Many that make claims with no evidence whatsoever. You'll believe the empty claims, but claims with evidence, that's just too far a stretch for you.
Question the narrative, but the facts are the facts. They exist independently of the narrative. Critical thinkers know how to separate the facts from the opinions and narrative. You clearly do not think critically if you think Tucker Carlson's editorial show is actually real news. How many times has he retracted bogus allegations this week alone?
Opinion blogs are not journalism, so you calling them journalism clearly shows YOU are the one who is NOT AWARE of the difference between hard journalism and editorial/opinion blogs.
Claims should always be questioned if they dont provide evidence. The evidence is what proves the claims. This post had 20 sources with hard facts and evidence to prove the claims. Those claims were corroborated across multiple organizations. The sources were verified and you're one of the few idiots choosing to remain ignorant to those facts.
Your agenda is to discredit anything that might show Trump is corrupt despite Trump implicating himself in obstruction of justice on national television and his son admitting to collusion with Russia during the election to get illegally obtained emails in order to influence the election. Even when Trump or Trump Jr admits on TV or Twitter you'll still deny it.
The facts and evidence determine the credibility of the claim and those sources listed by the OP had facts to back them up. Facts you refuse to even look at.
1 dammitjenkins20cars 2018-02-28
I never denied any evidence.
Nope, you still haven't comprehended my original comment... Smh
Nope, fox news is part of the MSM too, keep up.
Wtf is an opinion blog? Never came across these before, but I'd like to check them out if you can give me some examples.
No need to put words in my mouth. Creating strawman arguments only weakens your argument
So I guess all the examples of 'facts' from the nyt that proved to be bullshit went over your head. Wait... Was that facts or narrative?
So in your mind, everything outside of the MSM media is not journalism?
Again, no need to put words in my mouth
Are you are really presuming a lot here. Because I question the track record and integrity of the guardian and the ny times I must be a trump devotee with a maga hat on. Lol
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus dude, this is proving really hard to get through to you. I never claimed I read through all the articles. I never claimed that the accusations weren't true.
All I said was the all the sources referenced were all known bullshit propaganda MSM outlets with track records of lying. Thats it. That's the only claim I made. You've created all these other claims and agendas yourself and projected them on me.
Put it this way, if a known liar tell the truth once, it doesn't make it a lie. It also doesn't mean they don't deserve their reputation as a liar in the past and should now be blindly believed.
You really seem to be missing my original point.
All I was saying was that by sourcing exclusively from MSM outlets, you actually inadvertently bolster the argument against you, especially in a conspiracy subreddit.
Even the OP deleted his post because he realised the same thing.
That's it. So simple.
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
"All I said was the all the sources referenced were all known bullshit propaganda MSM outlets "
"I never claimed I read through all the articles. I never claimed that the accusations weren't true."
Ok, so read the 20+ sources and the supporting evidence, facts and documentation before discrediting them. The evidence and facts are what is important.
And tell us specifically which sources you find credible.
The OP deleted his post because guys like you, even when presented with a list of 20+ sources with supporting evidence, facts and documentation that have been corroborated by multiple sources and legal filings refuse to believe anything.
1 dammitjenkins20cars 2018-02-28
You really just don't get what I'm saying at all. In one ear out the other.
I'm not saying that every single fact within all 20 articles is wrong. I'm saying by ONLY quoting known bullshit propaganda MSM outlets that you give the IMPRESSION that it's bullshit and actually give more credibility to the other side of the argument.
This was the thrust of my original comment and no matter how many times I repeat it, it not sinking in, as shown by your ' ldenying the facts ' comments
Again, if a known liar tells the truth once, doesn't mean it's a lie.
This doesn't mean anything. There are multiple branches of the MSM, and all of them engage in bullshit, fabrications, cover-ups, psychological warfare and generally keeping the public uninformed and pacified towards the actions of the powers that be.
Again, this really is conspiracy theory 101.
And again, this doesn't mean that EVERY SINGLE THING they have ever said is factually inaccurate. Propaganda is more complicated than that.
As for credible resources, I'd recommend globalresearch.ca, activist post and the Corbett report. And I respect Eva Bartlett and John pilger as journalists.
But you know what, if someone presented me evidence that they had knowingly published 'fake news' and lies on multiple occasions (like I did with the ny times) I wouldn't just put my fingers in my ears and scream 'LALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU THEY ARE RESPECTABLE JOURNALISM EVERYTHING IS OPINION BLOGS LALALA' and would actually question my trust of them.
Because that is how credibility and reputation works if you are a critical thinking
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
In the real world a list of 20 articles from reputable organizations would not be considered propaganda. It's only in your world does it give the impression that its bullshit.
You've insulated yourself in a place where you can pick and choose what you want to believe regardless of the evidence presented. Calling a psy op or a coverup or propaganda is just your excuses for why you decide not to believe it.
You couldnt even tell me what a credible source is. You're rejecting all the sources and all the hard evidence and legal documentation based on a subjective impression. When you finally start to tell me what you call credible resources you reference globalresearch.ca, activist post and corbett report, all of them blogs. Eva Bartlett works for RT. How's that for irony, claiming all the MSM is propaganda and you're trusting a Russian blogger working for Russian state media for your information. I guess I can understand why you want to deny Donald Trump was involved in money laundering with Russia based on the sources you use.
1 dammitjenkins20cars 2018-02-28
We've been been over this. With long track records of lying, cheerleading for war, propaganda and deception, the only people who consider them reputable are idiots.
Jesus christ dude. I was trying to be nice before but, ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? Either that or you are purposely being disingenuous. I'm getting tired of repeating myself over and over explaining why I never said that.
Or perhaps all those bongs have given you brain damage. I mean, you were telling me I watched Tucker Carlson when that was some one else, is this all a bit confusing for you? Or perhaps trying desperately to hold on to the blue pill that the narrative and reality presented by TV news and newspapers is the truth and they are Honourable journalists. I remember when I realised that TV news is bullshit, it was difficult to comprehend in the beginning.
I hate to break it to you, but it's 2018, most real journalism is in the internet. These are websites with news stories and analysis. I think it's funny you disregard anything that isn't a newspaper that's 100 years old or on television. Wake up dude! These people are information gatekeepers.
And yeah Eva Bartlett is not Russian, and she doesn't 'work for rt', she is an independent freelance journalist who has contributed to many places including rt. She has extensive on the ground experience reporting from Syria
But look, here is one of your anointed truth tellers, the guardian, trying to white wash and defend known terrorists associates the white helmets. And who wrote the article, a technology editor from San Francisco who has never set foot in there and knows nothing about Syria. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories
This is standard behaviour for what you think is a 'reputable'
So when you post links to the the guardian in a conspiracy sub, EVEN IF WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS TRUE, IT GIVES THE IMPRESSION ITS BULLSHIT BECAUSE OF THEIR PAST BEHAVIOUR (maybe it will get through this time...fingers crossed)
Or maybe you are just trolling me at this point. I find it hard to believe someone who is 'well read' could find it so difficult to grasp simple concepts
Well done sir, 4chan would be proud of you.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-02-28
Are you new here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32403785.pdf
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/ciasuseofjournal00unit.pdf
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
The NY Times exposed MKULTRA. How are they not credible? The Washington Post broke Watergate and the Pentagon Papers. These organizations have confirmed many conspiracies with actual evidence and documentation.
You also didnt tell me what you find to be acceptable news organizations.
Despite the fact these stories are backed up by facts and evidence corroborated across multiple organizations you still dont find them credible.
The irony here is in your own comment history, you use many of these organizations as legitimate sources when they reinforce your beliefs.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-02-28
They manipulate what people see:
"The elite media set a framework within which others operate. If you are watching the Associated Press, who grind out a constant flow of news, in the mid-afternoon it breaks and there is something that comes along every day that says “Notice to Editors: Tomorrow’s New York Times is going to have the following stories on the front page.” The point of that is, if you’re an editor of a newspaper in Dayton, Ohio and you don’t have the resources to figure out what the news is, or you don’t want to think about it anyway, this tells you what the news is. These are the stories for the quarter page that you are going to devote to something other than local affairs or diverting your audience. These are the stories that you put there because that’s what the New York Times tells us is what you’re supposed to care about tomorrow..
The real mass media are basically trying to divert people. Let them do something else, but don’t bother us (us being the people who run the show). Let them get interested in professional sports, for example. Let everybody be crazed about professional sports or sex scandals or the personalities and their problems or something like that. Anything, as long as it isn’t serious. Of course, the serious stuff is for the big guys. “We” take care of that...
What are the elite media, the agenda-setting ones? The New York Times and CBS, for example. Well, first of all, they are major, very profitable, corporations. Furthermore, most of them are either linked to, or outright owned by, much bigger corporations, like General Electric, Westinghouse, and so on. They are way up at the top of the power structure of the private economy which is a very tyrannical structure. Corporations are basically tyrannies, hierarchic, controled from above. If you don’t like what they are doing you get out. The major media are just part of that system."
See also
https://archive.org/details/manufacturing_consent
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
More distractions and still avoiding the direct question of what is a credible source?
Also no discussion at all about how you use these same sources to back up your own posts.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-02-28
If you want to know what news sources I trust, just ask. You don't have to add all this nastiness to every comment you make in here. Doesn't all the negativity make you feel bad after a while?
I regularly check zerohedge, Executive Intelligence Review, Corbett Report, and watch Tucker Carlson every night. Read lots of other stuff that gets posted on content aggregators like this. EIR is cultish but highly accurate and has a 4 decade track record of scooping the rest of the media.
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
I asked 4 times already and you didnt answer, you just doubled down on how all media is not credible because its owned by corporations. I assume public outlets like NPR and PBS are not credible because they operate on government funding. You refuse to answer the question yet say these sources are totally credible when you cite them.
I'm not being nasty here. You're the one saying we cant believe anything we read and then claim Tucker Carlson and conspiracy blogs that frequently make claims without evidence are legit.
Youre a hypocrite.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-02-28
You are.
Lie.
Lie
Repeating your earlier lie.
Repeating your earlier lie.
Lie.
Lie.
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
Go back to watching the ever-credible Fox News every night, and keep reading those blogs that make allegations with no evidence whatsoever.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-02-28
Can't even tell me off without lying. About what I just said. To me.
You're pathetic, and I accept your surrender.
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
Haha you surrendered your credibility.
After asking you multiple times which sources you find credible you finally come back with Tucker Carlson on Fox News, Zerohedge and 2 other conspiracy blogs. They have all made allegations without proof.
When you cant win by attacking the sources, you attack the person. When you chant "Lie, lie, lie", despite an entire comment chain of comments that contradicts you, it is you being pathetic.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-02-28
Tucker Carlson is credible. Best news on TV right now. Have you actually watched it or do you just dismiss him because muh Fox News and you still identify with a party and dismiss anyone from the other party? He was all over the Las Vegas coverup.
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
Well get the ice cream and the wubby and watch Tucker preach from the pulpit.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-02-28
WTF is wubby?
1 Tacomano123 2018-02-28
So if he did, is that impeachable? I'm really asking cause IDK.
1 TooManyCookz 2018-02-28
I'm
Donkey
Kong
... holy shit.
1 chuck_94 2018-02-28
...you’ve....Holy shit you’ve done it! You’ve broken the code! You’ve uncovered the mother of all conspiracies!! GIVE THIS MAN THE FUCKING NOBEL OF ALL KNOWLEDGE NOW GODDAMNIT!!!
I kid I kid :)
1 chuck_94 2018-02-28
You’ve....holy shit you’ve done it! You’ve uncovered the conspiracy of all conspiracies!!! GODDAMNNIT GIVE THIS MAN IS NOBEL PRIZE ALREADY!!!!
I kid I kid :)
1 cpunk 2018-02-28
Nice try ShariaBlue BrockBot. Thanks for the laughs.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/41562
Saudi's gave Crooked Hillary $45 million.
Clinton Foundation accepted over $250,000,000 from Foreign Govts.
In the hacked email from Podesta on Wikileaks, it clearly shows Podesta and Crooked Hillary's staff biting the nails over their foreign bribery becoming known to the American people.
In that email link you literally have Joel Beneson, who was Hillary's 2016 Campaign Strategist saying shut it down immediately stop accepting money from foreign govts until Hillary wins the election. Podesta and Cheryl Mills chime in replying with their ideas about how to propagandize a way to cover it up!
And that's just one example. I can literally find 50 more Podesta emails proving shameless naked corruption and bribery at the Clinton Foundation.
https://guccifer2.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/master-west-tracker-2-5k-1-1-2010-7-10-2015.xlsx
That is the spreadsheet of all the hundreds of donors to the Clinton Foundation, as revealed by Guccifer 2.0.
Scroll to the very last line, add up the column for "Total Amount Donated" it's over $200 MILLION DOLLARS.
But let's talk about Ivanka and a few apartments in Panama. Everything you have cited is chump change compared to high roller Crooked Hillary.
I could keep going. But it doesn't matter anymore. Trump won. Crooked Hillary lost because she was the worst candidate in history.
You can keep fighting that battle that Crooked Hillary should have won, you can enter into a mystical and hallucinatory alt-timeline where she did win, and you can imagine all the "what if's" that would have turned out different.
By the way, #BernieCanStillWin
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-02-28
Why are you bringing up Hillary? She isn't the president...is that really your only defense?
HILLARY DID SOMETHING BAD SO TRUMP IS OKAY TO DO WHATEVER.
But no, I'm just a bot. Bleep bloop motherfucker.
1 sigurross 2018-02-28
Perhaps not, but your post and comment history suggests you are operating with a complete bias. Leads me to believe you are not looking at this objectively.
1 Trexlights 2018-02-28
It's not one or the other.
1 TheGreatOni19 2018-02-28
How can this guy call out someone for working at shareblue and not have his comment deleted. I thought we weren't allowed to call people shills on here. Where are the mods? Are we going to put this thread in Contest mode too?
1 Most-Obvious-Comment 2018-02-28
Haha I LOVE THIS POST! Not only does is the email chain that is used to prove how evil Hillary Clinton is literally say "hey this is bad we should find a way to put a stop to it!", but it doesn't address literally any of the claims made by OP! That is an impressive double whammy.
1 delfinko44 2018-02-28
You can link to Donalds page all you want doesn’t change the fact that modern journalism isn’t about facts it’s about clicks/views. They don’t care if they are right or wrong it’s about being provocative and making a story hit the mainstream. Dude your on a conspiracy page dedicated to saying the government and people who deliver the news to you are liars. Then you use those exact people to try and prove your point. It’s a tough sell and I’ll tell you this there are more people here that probably agree with me than with you. I appreciate the post and the effort you put in but If your gonna use sources like these especially in current times with how these entities are viewed all I can say is good luck in this sub.
1 mracidglee 2018-02-28
The Rubolovev plane stuff is interesting, but rich people speculating in real estate is not novel.
1 dreammanalishi 2018-02-28
So, what you've identified are two names. Felix Slater and Rybolovlev. You are positing that they are laundering with Trump but you haven't explained any collusion or election interference.
If I recall, Ryoblovlev most recently was targeted by the Russian government over someone help escape their clutches and they tried to financially punish him by crashing his shares of the bank in Cyprus or something. Broad strokes, there, because it's been a while since I've looked into it. Point being, if anything, that is evidence Trump is not working with the Russians as they used Vekselberg to out him.
Let's do a quick comparison, because I'm not saying you are wrong. I am going to say that I have a much better sourced article than this that uses primary source documentation to PROVE 100% that the DNC revenue stream and people like Media Matters have Russian rubles in their banks and they used it to sway the election.
Ruben Vardanyan, whose job is to make Putin's friends rich, runs an investment firm, Troika Dialog that paid The Podesta Group and the Podesta Group failed to disclose these ties, making it a FARA violation. We know this because of the LD 1 disclosure form and the Panama Papers. Two separate sources that independently corroborate each other.
Ruben Vardanyan also paid John Podesta through a front known as Joule Unlimited. We know this because of his leaked emails and the contract included in those emails. John Podesta has yet to disclose this and it is a violation of the FARA rules, again.
Both Podestas would be in jail if the law applied to them equally with Manafort.
This is the tip of the iceberg, because I have a lot more primary source evidence, but Ruben Vardanyan is the easiest to understand where the evidence is publicly available. Nothing secret. No taking anyone's word for it.
They used their funds through Center for American Progress, Comet Ping Pong, Media Matters, Correct the Record and Shareblue to influence social media through astroturfing through the Internet and even directly instructed news outlets on what to report.
THIS IS WHAT COLLUSION LOOKS LIKE.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd like to see something more than just biased news articles where I know John Podesta can call or email and just tell them what to say.
https://steemit.com/fbi/@webofslime/dear-fbi-the-evidence-that-proved-the-uranium-one-scandal-leads-to-evidence-that-proves-other-criminal-conspiracies-that-are
https://steemit.com/politics/@webofslime/5xlmqb-glow-in-the-dark-intelligence-asset-hogan-lovells-a-large-lobbying-group-in-the-us-and-international-law-firm-with-ties-to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Vardanyan_(businessman)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4635
https://www.fara.gov/docs/5926-Exhibit-AB-20160122-71.pdf
https://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=8a5bd4fb-2687-4cdf-9906-0a65f4d8d52b&filingTypeID=1
1 TheBongzilla 2018-02-28
You should make a post about this.
1 dreammanalishi 2018-02-28
https://steemit.com/fbi/@webofslime/dear-fbi-the-evidence-that-proved-the-uranium-one-scandal-leads-to-evidence-that-proves-other-criminal-conspiracies-that-are
1 TheGreatOni19 2018-02-28
Good job op. Further Confirming what I already suspected.
1 LightBringerFlash 2018-02-28
It's evident that OP has a hard-on for boosting his self-esteem by damaging Trump. He's using fake news sources that slander trump to support his slanderous premise. What a stupid guy.
Damaging trump is all liberals lust over because they are so low in self-esteem they need to bring better people down to feel good about themselves. It makes them feel like a savior, but in reality what they're doing won't boost their self-esteem. They will always be a piece of shit loser because their self-esteem revolves around the suffering of others.
Boosting your self-esteem the functional way is when it revolves around accomplishing things in your life independent of others. OP is a moron, downvote and move on everybody.
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-02-28
I'm an independent that leans left because of everything that has happened in the past 3 years...actually when I first voted, I was registered Republican in Nebraska, but sorry that doesn't fit your narrative :(
1 LightBringerFlash 2018-02-28
Political ideology has evolved, it's no longer about ideas and beliefs, it's now IDENTITY POLITICS.
Liberalism is synonymous for virtue signaling, entitlement, low self-esteem, and dysfunctionality. YOU are a liberal, not by the old definition, but by the NEW definition. You voting differently doesn't change your identity politics.
1 chuck_94 2018-02-28
How’s the weather over at T_D mate?
1 chuck_94 2018-02-28
How’s the weather over at T_D mate?
1 jrlovejr92 2018-02-28
He says in a 3 paragraph post where he does nothing but ad-hominem attack and make ridiculous blanket generalizations about "liberals". How much of your self esteem is tied to trying to make "liberals" look stupid?
1 Kind_Of_A_Dick 2018-02-28
Isn’t Lightbringer another name for Lucifer?
1 jrlovejr92 2018-02-28
Awful lot of people who apparently only look at the name of the media outlet and make a decision on its veracity from that. If you chose not to read it and decided it's a lie simply because it's from a media outlet you dislike, you're intellectually dishonest and misinformed.
1 Nightlight64 2018-02-28
What does this have to do with Trump-Russia collusion? Nothing.
Trump might be dirty in terms of finances? Wow, shocker! 😪
It has been clear the collusion crap was an entry path into investigating beyond just that and taking him and others down via things that have nothing to do with collusion.
1 PurplePupilEater 2018-02-28
Why are you bringing up Hillary? She isn't the president...is that really your only defense?
HILLARY DID SOMETHING BAD SO TRUMP IS OKAY TO DO WHATEVER.
But no, I'm just a bot. Bleep bloop motherfucker.
1 Trexlights 2018-02-28
It's not one or the other.
1 TheGreatOni19 2018-02-28
How can this guy call out someone for working at shareblue and not have his comment deleted. I thought we weren't allowed to call people shills on here. Where are the mods? Are we going to put this thread in Contest mode too?
1 Most-Obvious-Comment 2018-02-28
Haha I LOVE THIS POST! Not only does is the email chain that is used to prove how evil Hillary Clinton is literally say "hey this is bad we should find a way to put a stop to it!", but it doesn't address literally any of the claims made by OP! That is an impressive double whammy.
1 Bongstradamus 2018-02-28
I asked 4 times already and you didnt answer, you just doubled down on how all media is not credible because its owned by corporations. I assume public outlets like NPR and PBS are not credible because they operate on government funding. You refuse to answer the question yet say these sources are totally credible when you cite them.
I'm not being nasty here. You're the one saying we cant believe anything we read and then claim Tucker Carlson and conspiracy blogs that frequently make claims without evidence are legit.
Youre a hypocrite.