"I'm also very much a germaphobe..."

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How exactly saying it's unsubstantiated non-objective?

Before the famous Blue Dress, the story was being reported while Bill Clinton was still denying it. After the blue dress, it was physically confirmed.

Likewise, when criminal suspects are arrested, the media talks about the story of alleged crime. They usually call them suspects (instead of guilty) which is also objective because it is factual that they are suspects who have been charged based on probable cause.

So, again, please explain how it is non-objective to report that there's an allegation that is unsubstantiated.

I will add that Trump's best friend owns the National Enquirer. During the whole campaign, about 1/3 of issues had a main (negative) story about Hillary Clinton. NO article had a negative story about Donald Trump. Now, THAT is bias.

I have mentioned previously on some threads, negative reports were made about both the main parties.

However recently this went a bit 'overboard.'

Since Trump has gone overboard in things he has stated publicly, the media has not gone overboard in reporting it. The fact that they have not gone so far as to call him the douche that he is, shows just how restrained and non-overboard they've been.

However in many cases at least the press was saying the allegations were unsupported.

For Bill Clinton, the scandal was like waster off a duck's back.

He was in danger of having to leave office.

I will add that none of your commentary addresses your original claim about the mainstream media being non-objective regarding reporting the dossier as unsubstantiated.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I have mentioned previously on some threads, negative reports were made about both the main parties.

However recently this went a bit 'overboard.'

Since Trump has gone overboard in things he has stated publicly, the media has not gone overboard in reporting it. The fact that they have not gone so far as to call him the douche that he is, shows just how restrained and non-overboard they've been.

However in many cases at least the press was saying the allegations were unsupported.

For Bill Clinton, the scandal was like waster off a duck's back.

He was in danger of having to leave office.

I will add that none of your commentary addresses your original claim about the mainstream media being non-objective regarding reporting the dossier as unsubstantiated.

Unsubstantiated started to be emphasised more at a later stage. If the CIA was more capable of conducting investigations it would report scandals once it had tangible evidence. As I mentioned hacking attempts are at around 10 m pa. However there is no means so far (and I think never) where we can see 'how this affected the US election.'
Also it's not only the Russians doing the hacks. Wikileaks say it didn't receive anything from the Russians and the CIA is investigation to find ' go betweens' who passed the date to wiki leaks.

I never thought for one minute that Clinton would be removed. However we are talking about things for which the possibility of factual breach of conduct was stronger. It was by way of a live non anonymous source; Monica.

Nonetheless this sort of thing boosts news media attention and entertains the people (and the sheeple).

Here's one example of someone concluding on the basis of baseless reports

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rm=.bd67f8a62001&wpisrc=nl_most-draw14&wpmm=1

 

[Elixir]

I will add that none of your commentary addresses your original claim about the mainstream media being non-objective regarding reporting the dossier as unsubstantiated.

WP needs to have his own NOOOZ agency, so he can lead with the word "unsubstantiated" every time anyone says anything that reflects poorly on Trump, whether or not it is substantiated.

 

[Bronzeage]

I post on another forum where this topic was popular long before it was that Trump was an aficionado. Strange as it may seem, there are a great number of Trump supporters, as well. They made a lot of noise about the lack of proof, and even more noise about the inaccuracies which have been pointed out.

I issued challenges to two forum members:

"If you ever need a job, I'm sure BuzzFeed would hire you."

Okay. It's not as if I have absolutely no respect for your opinion. I'm willing to listen. Let's give it a try.

You tell me that you've never seen anything in Trump's past which would lead you to believe it's possible he might have sex with a prostitute in a hotel room. We'll allow that he did not personally pay for the prostitute.
You tell me that you don't believe the stories told about the Russian security services filming foreign visitors having sex with prostitutes, in order to obtain compromising information about them.

If you can say this, I'll consider that it's possible the dossier posted online, which quoted numerous anonymous sources saying things about Donald Trump and his activities while in Russia, might not all be true.

"That was in that past you say? As long as he's not banging them in the White House now, what does it matter?"

This could get complicated, so try to follow. There is a story going around that Trump did naughty things while if Russia, and now the Russians can make him do things which might not be good for the nation. If he doesn't do as they please, they will reveal things which would embarrass him. I'll give you the M4M challenge.

You tell me that you don't believe Trump would be embarrassed to have videos of prostitutes pissing on him shown to the public. Actually, he probably wouldn't be. That's not the problem. There is a claim that the Russians have embarrassing financial information about Trump.
You tell me that you don't believe Trump would care if it were revealed that his statements about his wealth and business success were bogus.

You tell me that such a thing doesn't matter and I'll try to think of someway it could be possible, in an infinite universe.

Neither has responded. This is Trump's problem at the moment. His supporters are willing to say, "There's no proof he did these things," but no one is willing to say, "These aren't the kind of thing he would do."

 

[whichphilosophy]

I will add that none of your commentary addresses your original claim about the mainstream media being non-objective regarding reporting the dossier as unsubstantiated.

WP needs to have his own NOOOZ agency, so he can lead with the word "unsubstantiated" every time anyone says anything that reflects poorly on Trump, whether or not it is substantiated.

Unsubstantiated is what the media started tagging these with and nothing was substantiated. I am just the postman.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Unsubstantiated is what the media started tagging these with and nothing was substantiated.

Therefore, it was factual and objective.

 

[Elixir]

His supporters are willing to say, "There's no proof he did these things," but no one is willing to say, "These aren't the kind of thing he would do."

Kelly Anne will say that! And she'll keep saying it as long as you keep a camera in her face and there's someone else present who threatens to get a word in edgewise.

 

[whichphilosophy]

His supporters are willing to say, "There's no proof he did these things," but no one is willing to say, "These aren't the kind of thing he would do."

Kelly Anne will say that! And she'll keep saying it as long as you keep a camera in her face and there's someone else present who threatens to get a word in edgewise.

And the elephant in the room is... there is no proof yet it's the event is portrayed as having taken place.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Unsubstantiated is what the media started tagging these with and nothing was substantiated.

Therefore, it was factual and objective.

How is promoting unsubstantiated data objective? Irrational and dishonest yet, but not objective.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I post on another forum where this topic was popular long before it was that Trump was an aficionado. Strange as it may seem, there are a great number of Trump supporters, as well. They made a lot of noise about the lack of proof, and even more noise about the inaccuracies which have been pointed out.

I issued challenges to two forum members:

"That was in that past you say? As long as he's not banging them in the White House now, what does it matter?"

This could get complicated, so try to follow. There is a story going around that Trump did naughty things while if Russia, and now the Russians can make him do things which might not be good for the nation. If he doesn't do as they please, they will reveal things which would embarrass him. I'll give you the M4M challenge.

You tell me that you don't believe Trump would be embarrassed to have videos of prostitutes pissing on him shown to the public. Actually, he probably wouldn't be. That's not the problem. There is a claim that the Russians have embarrassing financial information about Trump.
You tell me that you don't believe Trump would care if it were revealed that his statements about his wealth and business success were bogus.

You tell me that such a thing doesn't matter and I'll try to think of someway it could be possible, in an infinite universe.

Neither has responded. This is Trump's problem at the moment. His supporters are willing to say, "There's no proof he did these things," but no one is willing to say, "These aren't the kind of thing he would do."

Logically the last point "These aren't the kind of thing he would do. is as much use as tits on a bore.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Therefore, it was factual and objective.

How is promoting unsubstantiated data objective? Irrational and dishonest yet, but not objective.

Stating data is unsubstantiated is factual and objective. Reporting it is their job.

 

[Bronzeage]

I post on another forum where this topic was popular long before it was that Trump was an aficionado. Strange as it may seem, there are a great number of Trump supporters, as well. They made a lot of noise about the lack of proof, and even more noise about the inaccuracies which have been pointed out.

I issued challenges to two forum members:




Neither has responded. This is Trump's problem at the moment. His supporters are willing to say, "There's no proof he did these things," but no one is willing to say, "These aren't the kind of thing he would do."

Logically the last point "These aren't the kind of thing he would do. is as much use as tits on a bore.

When one's character is in question, a person's only defense is their past actions and decisions. I have yet to find anyone willing to express confidence that the charges are not true.

Just a technical note, all bores have tits and some are more useful than others, even if only to make them less boring.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Logically the last point "These aren't the kind of thing he would do. is as much use as tits on a bore.

When one's character is in question, a person's only defense is their past actions and decisions. I have yet to find anyone willing to express confidence that the charges are not true.

Just a technical note, all bores have tits and some are more useful than others, even if only to make them less boring.

If there is no proof then why should a person raise any defence at all. Bores have less use for these than Sows and so defence against hot air is meaningless.

 

[whichphilosophy]

How is promoting unsubstantiated data objective? Irrational and dishonest yet, but not objective.

Stating data is unsubstantiated is factual and objective. Reporting it is their job.

Repeating the claim that the sources are credible even though acknowledging the proof is lacking is not objective.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Supposing for a moment, that these reports of Golden Showers are true, and that videos of this stuff emerges, coutesy of Russian intelligence or some such. Then what? Do we impeach? Just laugh it off? Uhmmmmm........




Posted with permission from International Business Times Republish
Reprint

Adult magazine Penthouse has received three claims for its $1 million offer to anyone who could provide real tapes of President-elect Donald Trump’s alleged and unproven sexual escapades at the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow, the publication’s editor exclusively revealed to International Business Times Thursday.
Penthouse editor Raphie Aronowitz said the magazine isn’t conducting a “witch hunt,” but wants to prove whether the allegations against Trump are true. Aronowitz said the lucrative offer falls in line with the magazine’s well-established brand, though to his knowledge Penthouse has never made such an exorbitant offer before.

 

[Elixir]

Supposing for a moment, that these reports of Golden Showers are true, and that videos of this stuff emerges, coutesy of Russian intelligence or some such. Then what? Do we impeach? Just laugh it off? Uhmmmmm........

What's the charge? I don't think "things that make you say "Eeeeuw, YUCK!" are proscribed anywhere... and besides, maybe the Russians doctored the film and it's a LIiiiiiie!.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Supposing for a moment, that these reports of Golden Showers are true, and that videos of this stuff emerges, coutesy of Russian intelligence or some such. Then what? Do we impeach? Just laugh it off? Uhmmmmm........




Posted with permission from International Business Times Republish
Reprint

Adult magazine Penthouse has received three claims for its $1 million offer to anyone who could provide real tapes of President-elect Donald Trump’s alleged and unproven sexual escapades at the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow, the publication’s editor exclusively revealed to International Business Times Thursday.
Penthouse editor Raphie Aronowitz said the magazine isn’t conducting a “witch hunt,” but wants to prove whether the allegations against Trump are true. Aronowitz said the lucrative offer falls in line with the magazine’s well-established brand, though to his knowledge Penthouse has never made such an exorbitant offer before.

So you are saying there is still no evidence available.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Supposing for a moment, that these reports of Golden Showers are true, and that videos of this stuff emerges, coutesy of Russian intelligence or some such. Then what? Do we impeach? Just laugh it off? Uhmmmmm........

Well, we should be pissed!

Posted with permission from International Business Times Republish
Reprint

Adult magazine Penthouse has received three claims for its $1 million offer to anyone who could provide real tapes of President-elect Donald Trump’s alleged and unproven sexual escapades at the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow, the publication’s editor exclusively revealed to International Business Times Thursday.
Penthouse editor Raphie Aronowitz said the magazine isn’t conducting a “witch hunt,” but wants to prove whether the allegations against Trump are true. Aronowitz said the lucrative offer falls in line with the magazine’s well-established brand, though to his knowledge Penthouse has never made such an exorbitant offer before.

Penthouse? I thought it was Hustler that tended to make such offers.

 

[Funkytrip]

Supposing for a moment, that these reports of Golden Showers are true, and that videos of this stuff emerges, coutesy of Russian intelligence or some such. Then what? Do we impeach? Just laugh it off? Uhmmmmm........

Trump will simply state they're not true and nobody can prove the vids are. Trump look-alike, video tampering. Easy peasy.
Haven't we learned by now that Trump can say Anything. Anything he wants and people believe him.

 

[Elixir]

So you are saying there is still no evidence available.

What could possibly be more credible than a first hand account?

Russian hooker who had sex with Donald Trump mocks his “tiny penis”

““Many parts of his body are too small, not only his hands. I’ve slept with hundreds of men and I’ve seen some small penises, but he’s by far the smallest I’ve ever seen.... We were not surprised when he asked for some unusual stuff, because he was not physically equipped to engage in any kind of normal penetration.”