Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

[Lods]

Thanks but I pretty much aware of all of this.

That's the problem though with searching on the internet.
While mainstream sources have a pretty high profile in terms of their bias you really don't know where the majority of material is coming from.
That then requires a further search to determine bias...and our own bias comes into play because we favour material that supports our opinion.

Obscure links and sources can be found to counter most arguments.
Determining their legitimacy, independence or balance is often a difficult task.

[cookie2]

@Mav

I'm not arguing about whether or not these attempts took place, I'm asking for the evidence that there was collusion with the Trump campaign team. As I have already  stated, I would not trust the Russians or Putin and their motives. Cyber attacks are BAU for national security organisations the world over but pale in significance when compared to precipitating colour revolution, regime change, sponsorship of insurgencies leading to hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths etc. Where is the outrage about all of that?

This is not a binary argument - one side or the other. There is evil at work on both sides and I will continue to view the situation from that standpoint.

[cookie2]

That's the problem though with searching on the internet.
While mainstream sources have a pretty high profile in terms of their bias you really don't know where the majority of material is coming from.
That then requires a further search to determine bias...and our own bias comes into play because we favour material that supports our opinion.

Obscure links and sources can be found to counter most arguments.
Determining their legitimacy, independence or balance is often a difficult task.

Lods, I don't buy into much of whats out there for the reasons you mention. However, I am very sceptical also about the MSM, who owns it and their respective agendas, especially in the US. I try to find a few sources I can trust and battle to form some kind of view of what's actually going on. The picture is often very confused with real motives and agendas hidden. Good example - what will Trump do now re. foreign policy, especially in the ME and what will be driving it?

[Thryleon]

That's the problem though with searching on the internet.
While mainstream sources have a pretty high profile in terms of their bias you really don't know where the majority of material is coming from.
That then requires a further search to determine bias...and our own bias comes into play because we favour material that supports our opinion.

Obscure links and sources can be found to counter most arguments.
Determining their legitimacy, independence or balance is often a difficult task.

The good thing about the internet is that it becomes easier to background check.

The problem that we have with studying history of any kind is the lack of credible first hand sources.

We have more than ever before, it might make things time consuming, but I like to prefer as reading a range of different views, knowing that almost all of them will be written with one perspective in mind, and almost totally ignoring other perspectives.

Why do I know this??

High school taught me, that if you right something, you need to find a stance, back up that stance, and rebutt opposing stances, and that sitting on the fence becomes "painful" to argue.

Therefore, anyone arguing too heavily one way, has bias and its worth reading the opposing view point simply for a difference perspective.

It might sound a bit tin foil hat worthy, but if you read long enough, you will see enough different perspectives of any event to weed out what is generally happening.

[LP]

I would concede that there are "fruit loops", some with evil intent, who have latched on the this and tried to make mileage out of it, although I don't really read the so-called alternative media. However there are other more credible sources backed up by expert input from such people as building demolition experts, structural engineers etc who have raised significant doubts as to the official version, enough doubts imo for me to reserve my judgement on it.

You wouldn't know if you were reading it, syndication makes it almost impossible to trace where some articles originate. You should never assume the author, or even the unattributed story, come from the organisation publishing it.

You need to be more selective on your choice of experts. It reminds me of the thousands of "scientists" denying climate change, dentists, surgeons, metallurgists, electronics engineers, geneticists, etc., etc., while the vast bulk of environmental scientists almost 100% agree(Running at about 98.4% for peer reviewed material) it's real.

A few weeks back I was reading a right-wing website that listed Astrologist as one of the career choices for experts wanting to publish/contribute an opinion! Bugger, I'm a dowser(water diviner) so they wouldn't accept my article!

There are academic articles you can refer to, peer reviewed by independent scientists and engineers, published in public forums so their reputation is put on the line, that can be used to get an understanding of just about any major event. You should particularly look for on-line institutions associated with the major universities like Standford, MIT, Oxford, Cambridge, etc., etc., you don't have to ask Christopher Monckton about 9/11 to find the truth!

[LP]

High school taught me, that if you right something, you need to find a stance, back up that stance, and rebutt opposing stances, and that sitting on the fence becomes "painful" to argue.

If you write something it better be right, phone typing or not!

Therefore, anyone arguing too heavily one way, has bias and its worth reading the opposing view point simply for a difference perspective.

Or they know you're argument is rubbish and they just won't let it go! 

[Thryleon]

If you write something it better be right, phone typing or not!

Or they know you're argument is rubbish and they just won't let it go! 

You are correct, thank you grammar police, but there is no need to be childish.

[LP]

You are correct, thank you grammar police, but there is no need to be childish.

You're only as old as you feel!

Just behaving likes those "Alternative News Sources", I've been Trumpled you know!

From "The World Set Free" H.G Wells (1914)

Primitive man had been a fiercely combative animal; innumerable generations had passed their lives in tribal warfare, and the weight of tradition, the example of history, the ideals of loyalty and devotion fell in easily enough with the incitements of the international mischief-maker. The political ideas of the common man were picked up haphazard, there was practically nothing in such education as he was given that was ever intended to fit him for citizenship as such (that conception only appeared, indeed, with the development of Modern State ideas), and it was therefore a comparatively easy matter to fill his vacant mind with the sounds and fury of exasperated suspicion and national aggression.

It appears H.G. Wells was quite an authority on Trump and his like, even back then in 1914, I thought you would like that little bit of learning from history! :o

[cookie2]

You wouldn't know if you were reading it, syndication makes it almost impossible to trace where some articles originate. You should never assume the author, or even the unattributed story, come from the organisation publishing it.

You need to be more selective on your choice of experts. It reminds me of the thousands of "scientists" denying climate change, dentists, surgeons, metallurgists, electronics engineers, geneticists, etc., etc., while the vast bulk of environmental scientists almost 100% agree(Running at about 98.4% for peer reviewed material) it's real.

A few weeks back I was reading a right-wing website that listed Astrologist as one of the career choices for experts wanting to publish/contribute an opinion! Bugger, I'm a dowser(water diviner) so they wouldn't accept my article!

There are academic articles you can refer to, peer reviewed by independent scientists and engineers, published in public forums so their reputation is put on the line, that can be used to get an understanding of just about any major event. You should particularly look for on-line institutions associated with the major universities like Standford, MIT, Oxford, Cambridge, etc., etc., you don't have to ask Christopher Monckton about 9/11 to find the truth!

I thought structural engineers and building demolition experts may just qualify as experts wrgt commenting on the collapse of the WTC buildings? Or do you know better in your capacity as a dowser?

[Bear]

Lods, I don't buy into much of whats out there for the reasons you mention. However, I am very sceptical also about the MSM, who owns it and their respective agendas, especially in the US. I try to find a few sources I can trust and battle to form some kind of view of what's actually going on. The picture is often very confused with real motives and agendas hidden. Good example - what will Trump do now re. foreign policy, especially in the ME and what will be driving it?

Cookie, Can I recommend a podcast: Left, Right & Center

Very balanced take on US politics, both left and right, avoids the hysterical/lunatic fringe.

It must be good as apparently they got referenced on a recent episode of The Simpsons.