Maggie's Farm

Old Codger: Ahhhh, you are truly "feeble-minded" if you believe the old blue pill confabulation that women are the "civilizers" of men, when the exact opposite is true!

Case in point: Helen of Troy.

Old Codger: If "civilization" were up to women, we'd all be living in grass huts!

Counter-example: Taj Mahal.

Assistant Village Idiot: But many artists held the line on that and kept making the powerful egalitarian statement that everyday people and everyday scenes were noble, and worthy of artistic attention.

A noteworthy analysis. Rockwell certainly struck a chord with American idealism.

Assistant Village Idiot: A radical idea.

The Romantic ideal, with all that it entails.

You mean the one about how Russia hacked the DNC? {"It's all a big Dem scam and excuse for losing the election!"} Or do you mean the one about how a major party presidential candidate asked a foreign power to release stolen emails? {"Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."}

It's not atypical for media to rush ahead when there is public interest, whether about a heinous crime, a fire, or a political story. That's how they sell papers page views. This results in cutting corners and the inevitable mistakes. However, that is not the same as fake news, which is "a type of yellow journalism that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes".

drowningpuppies: NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/CBS News/AP) — A 35-page dossier compiled by a former British spy claiming that Russia gathered compromising information about President Donald Trump is gaining credibility among law enforcement, CBS News has learned.

Are you saying that law enforcement is not looking into the dossier? That the report is wrong on this point?

The dossier is probably a mix of fact, innuendo, and misinformation. Keep in mind that most mainstream news organizations wouldn't publish the dossier until it was finally published by BuzzFeed. Even now, most mainstream news organizations haven't published the contents of the dossier because there is no way to independently verify its contents.

drowningpuppies: It's the "gaining credibility" part.

Are you saying that the report is incorrect concerning the stated opinions of law enforcement? The original reporting was by CBS, but other news organizations have confirmed that some of the information in the dossier has been corroborated by U.S. investigators. That doesn't mean the rest of the information isn't false or even disinformation, but that doesn't make the report incorrect.

drowningpuppies: What stated opinions are you referring to?

"A 35-page dossier compiled by a former British spy claiming that Russia gathered compromising information about President Donald Trump is gaining credibility among law enforcement, CBS News has learned."

If you have an objection, try to be specific. Are you saying CBS News misunderstood their sources?

drowningpuppies: What information was corroborated and by whom?

According to U.S. investigators, nothing related to the salacious allegations, but as it relates to conversations with senior Russian officials.

drowningpuppies: Non-answers with a bit of innuendo

The issue is the opinion of law enforcement officials, whether they are finding the dossier to be credible, at least in parts. While the CBS report is based on unnamed law enforcement officials, that is certainly more evidence than "Is not!"

Are you saying you reject all news reporting of unnamed sources? If CBS talks to an official who doesn't want to be named, CBS shouldn't report on what the official said, even if independent sources confirm the information?

drowningpuppies: Trump called for the Russians to release DNC emails for his own political advantage.

The press sometimes gets the story wrong, but they have a responsibility to correct the record when they do. CNN retracted the story, and the persons responsible resigned because it didn't meet editorial standards. Those standards are why such reports are better evidence than "Is not!", though it is certainly reasonable to be at least somewhat skeptical absent more definitive evidence.

You are conflating skepticism with solipsism.

Jim: Democrats now trying to block investigation of Obama administration's "unmasking" involvement in Russian Hoax, violation of national security laws.

The meeting was only delayed.

Christopher B: Mistakes and hyperbole happen but I notice that you conveniently ignore the third category of falsity in reporting - the deliberate distortion and/or omission of context to produce a false narrative, i.e. 'fake news'.

Fox News comes to mind, but you might want to be more specific.

Jim: That is exactly what the Russia thing is, a hoax.

Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security: "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations... These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process."

Jim: 1. Where was Obama, whose responsibility it was to deal with this?

The Obama Administration warned about Russian hacking, including releasing the conclusions of the U.S. Intelligence Committee the Russian's were attempting to interfere with the election process. They worked with state and local governments to try and secure the system, but ran into opposition by many who didn't want the federal government intruding into local matters.

The Obama Administration also consider retaliation, including broad economic sanctions, a cyber-counterattack, or even military posturing, but decided these might lead to a worsening of the conflict. A direct response was delayed until after the election, in order to avoid interfering the election process. At that point they imposed targeted economic and diplomatic sanctions.

It can be argued that the Obama Administration should have done more, but they did take a number of prudent actions, and certainly didn't ignore the problem.

Compare to Trump, who has denied there even was Russian hacking, or that it is an issue that needs to be addressed. The U.S. is rudderless.

Jim: 2. There is not a single shred of evidence that Trump or any of the folks with him had anything improper to do with the Russians.

• Trump called for the Russians to release DNC emails for his own political advantage.

• Trump's Director of NSA resigned due to purported lying about his contacts with Russian agents.

• Trump's Attorney General recused himself from the Russian investigation because he 'forgot' about his contacts with Russian agents.

• Trump's campaign head resigned because of allegations he received cash payments from pro-Russian Ukrainians.

• Trump fired the Director of the FBI, who was overseeing the Russia investigation.

• Trump's business organization involved large sums of Russian money in the past. He refuses to release his tax returns, after having promised he would do so.

• Trump has spent months denying Russian hacking, while tilting American policy towards the Russians.

While this doesn't constitute legal proof of collusion, it is certainly enough evidence to justify an investigation. A special council has been appointed to looking into the question of Russian interference in the U.S. election, and related issues.

Jim: 3. Why hasn't anything been done about the Seth Rich murder?

Murder of Seth Rich: "The murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories about the crime, including the groundless claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, which runs contrary to U.S. intelligence that concluded the leaked DNC emails were part of 2016 U.S. elections interference."

Z: Trump called for the Russians to release DNC stolen Clinton emails for his own political advantage.

drowningpuppies: "Spurious allegations" is not "evidence" of collusion

You mean none of the bullet-points above are accurate? Trump didn't call for the Russians to release stolen Clinton emails for his own political advantage?