It’s possible that Trump’s rhetoric spurred the talks, but it’s also possible that it was down to internal factors in NK brought on by sanctions, we can’t really know.

Also, if Obama has decided to meet Kim, the only way he would have failed would be a plane crash. Kim would have bitten the hand off of anyone making that offer with no preconditions.

He also said he'd bring the troops home and he's done a bit of that too.

Obama didn't meet up.

I've decided to like Trump just to annoy you and Dante. Go Trump!

Why are we talking about North Korea?

Why aren't my fellow progressive liberals itt reflecting on the hysteria around Russia gate and maybe learn summat about themselves and our brethren in the media?

I sa this coming a while back. You just had to read into the detail. Indictments basically for lying. A dude lying about his business in the Ukraine.... But when you look at it, he was lobbying for rapprochement with NATO / western bloc and EU. Not a Russian stooge move.

These people around trump are greedy idiots. They lied to protect themselves, got caught, and were leveraged in turn. But they only caught other bent idiots, not Russian colliders.

The ultimate bent idiot of all, at the top, it turns out is only a bent idiot. Not a Russian asset, which was always fucking laughable.

What's the lesson here? Why isn't the MSM concentrating, why didn't it always concentrate, on lobbying, on selling US influence for money. That's what trump is after, and his people.

I think I know the answer but I'll let yous all figure it out for yourself.

Or you know, your takeway from this spectacular, predictable failure can be "but North Korea is very bad" - it's a free country after all.

Yeah,I know you totally ignored the first two sentences of SG's post, because discomfort, and decided to pile in on the last, totally unrelated remark to the issue in question.

It was a rhetorical question I asked, m8, but thanks for proving my point!

Unlikely wrote:

This looks bad for Trump: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation

Very tired of things looking bad bad for Trump rather than actually being bad.

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

No major wrongdoing no, not in a substantive as opposed to a procedural sense. Just lies. That's what "perverting the course of justice" (obstruction over there) means. He lied to fend them off. There is no proof he is shilling / a Russian agent. And he is lie proof. Trying to remove him will whip up his base. They're armed, most of them. It's dangerous. Itll give him headaches aye, that's what it's supposed to do. Give him headaches so he will bargain on a few things - eg foreign wars. This is a bargaining chip that will be used for some corporate interests which he doesn't represent. It will not do political damage to him. It reads as "they're trying to get him because he's against the system" to his base. He's teflon on lies. We need to get actual evidence of collusion with Russia. Or better yet, OBS, which would disenchant his base. But we won't do that, if we're Mueller, will we. OBS is strictly hands off.

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

I'm just saying prepare to be disappointed, my reading is a lot of these stories and leaks are designed to light a fire under his ass to get him to compromise. Usually over something not altogether good for Americans or the world. Eg Syria, he blew his top and ordered a withdrawal. But they're still there, in effect. There is no smoking gun on Russia. There is just this instrumental stuff of saying there is, waiting for people to lie, catching them and then getting them for an instrumental crime - obstruction.

Oops, double post

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

I also came across goobs confidently assuming that trump had colluded. I hasten to add this isn't triumphant / gloating. I'm just pointing out that in a lot of you there was just this assumption that this had to be true. I'm trying to encourage people to be more skeptical of received media wisdom. Lots of these guys have no idea at all.

Somewhat (but not completely) connected, I've really started to question some of the media sources I browse. i dont think they are lying but I do think they are as guilty as the red tops and right wing stuff in terms of how they approach getting readers. The Guardian of late (but probably much longer) has developed a trend of 2 things which annoy and disappoint because I find it mostly a good overall read. (and I'm only picking them as they get quoted a lot in here) 

Point 1 - Taking sides. I'm not a a believer that news should (or even can) be impartial but the response to how the right reacted to the report conclusions was all about "gloating" "crowing" and "weaponizing" over the results. I cant help but think if this was a victory for the left about Hilary's emails or something similar, we would have very different wordings. It's hard to complain about the bubble on the other side when we allow ourselves to be part of the bubble on the other.

Point 2 - Doom and Gloom - The Day Today rightfully pointed out years ago that the advent of 24 hour news was a mostly terrible thing as news was turned into entertainment and the need to keep ratings meant that news outlets (all of them) had to do what they could to attract an audience. I feel the Guardian has slipped into this with a huge amount of hyoerbole and alarmist reporting gradually seeping in to their stories. Small issues are blown out of proportion and the main page is full of the worst things in the world. Again, this is a tactic that I've often heard aimed at the right side of politics to galvanize Viewers and readers and to get a response. I think the Guardian is probably better at judging when to use this tone but it still is guilty of the same tactics.

 Just to be clear, I dont think the Guardian is the out and out problem. I just feel that overall most media reporting is aimed not so much as informing but in getting a reaction and forcing a side. There is still plenty of good reporting and writing going on, but I'm much more cynical of the whole lot nowadays.

RedDave2 wrote:

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

I also came across goobs confidently assuming that trump had colluded. I hasten to add this isn't triumphant / gloating. I'm just pointing out that in a lot of you there was just this assumption that this had to be true. I'm trying to encourage people to be more skeptical of received media wisdom. Lots of these guys have no idea at all.

Somewhat (but not completely) connected, I've really started to question some of the media sources I browse. i dont think they are lying but I do think they are as guilty as the red tops and right wing stuff in terms of how they approach getting readers. The Guardian of late (but probably much longer) has developed a trend of 2 things which annoy and disappoint because I find it mostly a good overall read. (and I'm only picking them as they get quoted a lot in here) 

Point 1 - Taking sides. I'm not a a believer that news should (or even can) be impartial but the response to how the right reacted to the report conclusions was all about "gloating" "crowing" and "weaponizing" over the results. I cant help but think if this was a victory for the left about Hilary's emails or something similar, we would have very different wordings. It's hard to complain about the bubble on the other side when we allow ourselves to be part of the bubble on the other.

Point 2 - Doom and Gloom - The Day Today rightfully pointed out years ago that the advent of 24 hour news was a mostly terrible thing as news was turned into entertainment and the need to keep ratings meant that news outlets (all of them) had to do what they could to attract an audience. I feel the Guardian has slipped into this with a huge amount of hyoerbole and alarmist reporting gradually seeping in to their stories. Small issues are blown out of proportion and the main page is full of the worst things in the world. Again, this is a tactic that I've often heard aimed at the right side of politics to galvanize Viewers and readers and to get a response. I think the Guardian is probably better at judging when to use this tone but it still is guilty of the same tactics.

 Just to be clear, I dont think the Guardian is the out and out problem. I just feel that overall most media reporting is aimed not so much as informing but in getting a reaction and forcing a side. There is still plenty of good reporting and writing going on, but I'm much more cynical of the whole lot nowadays.

Guardian gets a lot of stick. I think on Brexit and a few other things (latterly, Venezuela) they are a bit myopic, but I have to say, it's pretty much the only source of news chez ozno. I just check primary sources every now and then. I also just don't trust everything.

The real problem in the US is politico, CNN, WaPo, BuzzFeed, Huffington post etc. Guardian gets a AAA rating compared to those.

RedDave2 wrote:

It's not the facts as such I have an issue with. It's the presentation. Of late it feels like it seems to push opinion pieces that bit too much. Yes, compared to the others its miles better, but you could attach a right wing filter to it and those same types of news deliver would like very different.

I suspect The Guardian are reporting that way because they are alarmed at the rise of the populist (alt) right worldwide in the past 8-10 years. This rise also happens to coincide with the burgeoning use of social media (fb in particular) and the misuse of personal data (again by the right) in targeted propaganda campaigns during key elections.

It triggers emergency alarm bells at the Guardian and I can't say I blame them. The Aggregate IQ/ CA/ FB scandal has far reaching implications worldwide for democracy as a whole. Implications which people (especially in the West) have yet to acknowledge.

Imo, unbiased news does not exist. Facts are always colored by bias of the observer. There's always the viewpoint of the reporter or editor seeping through. Balanced reporting however is possible by acknowlidging the above and balancing views from multiple angles (something which the Guardian does adhere to).

Always keep the above in mind when reading and assessing articles and sources. Identifying fake or unfairly biased news becomes a lot easier this way.

Every publisher has a position on the political spectrum.This is reflected especially in the opinion columns. Editorial stances on burning issues aren't uncommon, the Guardian for one publishes those quite regularly.

Yes and no.
I still think the left does balancing out views and sources better. Also, that FB/Aiq/CA cess pit dumpster fire that Mercer and Bannon (you know, the right) ignited. The ramifications are still being ignored and swept under the carpet in the West.

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

I also came across goobs confidently assuming that trump had colluded. I hasten to add this isn't triumphant / gloating. I'm just pointing out that in a lot of you there was just this assumption that this had to be true. I'm trying to encourage people to be more skeptical of received media wisdom. Lots of these guys have no idea at all.

The quote from the report (which no one outside of the US justice department has seen) explicitly states that the report does not exonerate Trump, but you crack on being non triumphant.