"Currants Bw..."

[Niall_Quinn]

It’s about as convincing as believing Trumps tweets had anything to do with Kim Jong Uns sudden desire to talk

And just to clarify I’m not saying you do believe that

This hive mind legacy media you keep talking about is interested in one thing only sensationalism. Trump says what he says for attention a insatiable desire for it, it’s been that way with him for almost fourty years.

And the media sells papers and wins Neilson ratings contests by reporting on that

Trump could have said he will bomb Pyongyang at a designated date and time, I wouldn’t have batted an eyelid.

Exactly!

But try telling the "pros" at the BBC that. Or the loons at CNN or the hammer and sickle mob down at the Guardian.

The legacy media is a lost cause and isn't going to change between now and its expiration. Unfortunately, that's going to take a while yet and that's because of the main reason that I'm intrigued by the whole question of western media.

We know that media sources in (politically speaking) shitholes like China and Russia are quite obviously manipulated and serve as nothing much more than propaganda outlets. They do the usual thing, 90% accuracy on trivia, then slip in the blatant lies and trade of the high accuracy rating to gain unwarranted authority. But, most importantly, exclude whatever has not been approved for public consumption. Apply spin and job done. We all know what those media sources are about.

But in the west so many people think their own media sources aren't exactly the same. That's fascinating because over the last year in particular the mainstream media has let all pretence drop yet people, like Letters for example, still don't see it. It reminds me a lot of the delusional condition Wenger wanders around in. And okay, so everyone gets fooled once, twice, three time maybe more. But EVERY time? WTF?

[Niall_Quinn]

Yes. We were all hiding under our beds.
Or laughing at the silly posturing by both of them acting like two toddlers.
One of those.

Long record of you dismissing things but not providing any basis for alternative views.
You act as if you reading different things and parroting different sources (which you rarely if ever cite) makes you an independent thinker.
It really doesn't.

You see, you said it right there. You are such a mind slave you think I'm supposed to be providing links to validate my own fucking opinion! It's hilarious. You behave as if you are artificially intelligent rather than actually intelligent.

[Niall_Quinn]

Yes. We were all hiding under our beds.
Or laughing at the silly posturing by both of them acting like two toddlers.
One of those.

Long record of you dismissing things but not providing any basis for alternative views.
You act as if you reading different things and parroting different sources (which you rarely if ever cite) makes you an independent thinker.
It really doesn't.

Okay here's a very simple test. Which I'm certain you are going to fail.

Question: Did Trump collude with the Russians to win the 2016 election?

[GP]

Okay here's a very simple test. Which I'm certain you are going to fail.

Question: Did Trump collude with the Russians to win the 2016 election?

Of course he didn't. That's as absurd as saying Hillary killed Seth Rich.

[Niall_Quinn]

Of course he didn't. That's as absurd as saying Hillary killed Seth Rich.

Nobody knows what you believe one way or the other, except when it comes to motor sports and computer gaming.

[HCZ]

Okay here's a very simple test. Which I'm certain you are going to fail.

Question: Did Trump collude with the Russians to win the 2016 election?

No but the Russian state still interfered on his behalf

Who knows how connected the people Donald Dimwit Jnr, knowing him they were more likely tied up with cirque de soleil

Manafort, Flynn and Beauregard all met with the Russians at some point as well, and perjured themselves over it

Were these meetings about the election? Actually No probably not (although possibly so in Manafort’s case)

The reason the issue arose in the first place is because Trump doesn’t do due diligence with the people he worked with, and more than likely he himself tried to arrange meetings with the Russians prior to the election however this was about furthering business interests inside Russia because the assumption was that he’d lose.

Trump nor any of the people around him are genius schemers, in his case he’s just an actor playing a successful business man and someone who is just an amalgamation of bad character traits.

[Letters]

You see, you said it right there. You are such a mind slave you think I'm supposed to be providing links to validate my own fucking opinion! It's hilarious. You behave as if you are artificially intelligent rather than actually intelligent.

You don't believe in climate change (not a topic I want to re-open, this is just an example).
OK, that's fine.
But are you a climate researcher? No. No you're not. Do you have a degree in a relevant field? Highly unlikely.
So don't pretend that your opinion on this matter is entirely self-derived. Maybe it is in which case you're an idiot, frankly.

For most people their opinion about this, and opinions about other things, are based on something.
Things they've seen or read, people they've spoken to.
So asking you what you're basing your opinions on is not unreasonable.
If you claim something then provide some evidence. What is the claim based on? Otherwise it's just us both claiming stuff with no basis, it becomes little more than "is", "isn't", "is", "isn't".
If the claim is verifiable of course, if it's something which is just a matter of opinion then yours is as good as mine.

The honest answer to your question is I don't know. Your honest answer would have to be the same. Again, we don't really know for sure.
My opinion is probably not. Or not directly. Some people in his team seem to have had some links to Russia, how far that went and how much influence that really had we will most likely never know for sure.

[Niall_Quinn]

No but the Russian state still interfered on his behalf

Who knows how connected the people Donald Dimwit Jnr, knowing him they were more likely tied up with cirque de soleil

Manafort, Flynn and Beauregard all met with the Russians at some point as well, and perjured themselves over it

Were these meetings about the election? Actually No probably not (although possibly so in Manafort’s case)

The reason the issue arose in the first place is because Trump doesn’t do due diligence with the people he worked with, and more than likely he himself tried to arrange meetings with the Russians prior to the election however this was about furthering business interests inside Russia because the assumption was that he’d lose.

Trump nor any of the people around him are genius schemers, in his case he’s just an actor playing a successful business man and someone who is just an amalgamation of bad character traits.

This simply isn't supported by the facts that are now in the public domain. The Russians, as they always do, tried to interfere with the election process and had precisely no success. That's what the pile of paper now available in the public domain documents in detail. We know when, how, how much, for who. Trump, Saunders, Stein, AND Clinton. These are the people the Russian tried to hinder in some cases and help in others, with the general intent to be disruption.

The resources allocated to do this were minuscule compared to the expenditure of the main campaigns. And all official sources who have access to the pertinent facts and documentation confirm that the Russian effort had no effect whatsoever (other than to trick that fat commie whale Michael Moore into attending a Russian sponsored anti-Trump demo).

Rosenstein confirmed all this just the other day, in front of the cameras.

What you are actually keying in on the the net effect of the constantly dripping legacy media fake news that you have willingly or inadvertently consumed for over a year now.

As for Trump, as a marketing man he's the exact opposite of stupid. He's played the entire mainstream establishment like a fiddle and beaten then at every step. This is why he's hated, this is part of the reason why the establishment has launched this fake news blizzard and kangaroo court against him.

The establishment has an agenda and that agenda absolutely required Clinton to be in the Whitehouse today. She is corrupt enough to be relied on to cover for the complacency that crept in during the criminal activities of prior administrations. They don't love Clinton, they just know she can be relied upon to do the most corrupt thing.

Ironically it was the Russians who had most favourable dealings with the Clintons and their criminal foundation. This is all public record too.

What has happened over the last year is the legacy media has delivered pretty much precisely the reverse of the truth. Scratch the surface and it's easy to determine this for yourself. Very easy in fact, wouldn't take more than a day of reading.

Which is why the legacy media remains dangerous. It does that reading for people, but then changes the story.

[Niall_Quinn]

You don't believe in climate change (not a topic I want to re-open, this is just an example).
OK, that's fine.
But are you a climate researcher? No. No you're not. Do you have a degree in a relevant field? Highly unlikely.
So don't pretend that your opinion on this matter is entirely self-derived. Maybe it is in which case you're an idiot, frankly.

For most people their opinion about this, and opinions about other things, are based on something.
Things they've seen or read, people they've spoken to.
So asking you what you're basing your opinions on is not unreasonable.
If you claim something then provide some evidence. What is the claim based on? Otherwise it's just us both claiming stuff with no basis, it becomes little more than "is", "isn't", "is", "isn't".
If the claim is verifiable of course, if it's something which is just a matter of opinion then yours is as good as mine.

The honest answer to your question is I don't know. Your honest answer would have to be the same. Again, we don't really know for sure.
My opinion is probably not. Or not directly. Some people in his team seem to have had some links to Russia, how far that went and how much influence that really had we will most likely never know for sure.

30 years of political study is my answer. I have worked with them, worked against them and observed them at every turn. And intelligence. Not generational leading intelligence, but enough to be able to sift lies from truth based upon the vast pattern of evidence and facts that are all just out there to be plucked off the ground. And, so important, memory. Because without it you can't correlate one event to the next, you can't see the patterns.

How does a mechanic know how to diagnose an engine just by listening to it? How do you know what your wife is thinking when she makes an otherwise indecipherable gesture? Exposure, experience, practical application, memory, pattern recognition. All the tools of any trade.

And no, the climate charlatans are not experts. They are educated and corrupt. That doesn't automatically make them experts. Experts are people that have an expertise in some field. You'll find most of these climate scientists are educated pen pushers, which is why their data is wrong - ALL THE TIME. Of course it is. The earth and the cosmos don't adjust themselves around bogus, grant motivated junk science. Anyway, happily the climate scam is dying off as the globalists realise they have bigger things to worry about than their cherished global tax.

And I have provided plenty of links in the past, for what it's worth. Those Trump sex scandal links that annihilated the fake story you were running with for example. It's a waste of time. Because once one crackpot mainstream conspiracy theory is knocked down the lunatics just move onto the next. Which is why they are so inept. They don't reflect, learn, perfect. They just throw as much shit as they can and hope the public has its mouth wide open.

[Cripps]

What on earth are you lot blabbing on about now?