The 45th POTUS - Donald J. Trump

[BurtReynolds]

It only took them around 8 hours to respond, but I'm sure they just wanted to get the facts straight first. You know, like they do with everything else.

[Strat]

It only took them around 8 hours to respond, but I'm sure they just wanted to get the facts straight first. You know, like they do with everything else.

[BurtReynolds]

It only took them around 8 hours to respond, but I'm sure they just wanted to get the facts straight first. You know, like they do with everything else.

Do you work at CNN or something? Calm the fuck down.

[Kaius]

Yeah, but, is anyone even surprised by this leak? It just feels like, "yeah...eh". It is wrong and it is scary, but it's not a shocker.

[Strat]

It only took them around 8 hours to respond, but I'm sure they just wanted to get the facts straight first. You know, like they do with everything else.

Do you work at CNN or something? Calm the fuck down.

You are flying off the handle here, burt.

[Self]

Yeah, but, is anyone even surprised by this leak? It just feels like, "yeah...eh". It is wrong and it is scary, but it's not a shocker.

After Snowden, it's hard to muster any shock about what the CIA can and does do. To be honest, I'd be disappointed if they couldn't hack into my car and make me drive off a cliff.

[BurtReynolds]

I'm sure the media on the left was equally super concerned with who was leaking the info damaging Trump, and not the info itself.

I'm sure of it. I'm sure it was in all their headlines.

But finding out who is responsible is probably more important than:

[Strat]

Yeah, but, is anyone even surprised by this leak? It just feels like, "yeah...eh". It is wrong and it is scary, but it's not a shocker.

After Snowden, it's hard to muster any shock about what the CIA can and does do. To be honest, I'd be disappointed if they couldn't hack into my car and make me drive off a cliff.

https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-r ... p-highway/

[bune]

It only took them around 8 hours to respond, but I'm sure they just wanted to get the facts straight first. You know, like they do with everything else.

Do you work at CNN or something? Calm the fuck down.

[McParadigm]

There's two stories on the right side of the screen with no scrolling required. And I agree it's a big story.

Sorry I was talking about the mobile version. It probably deserves more attention than "Obama is really mad" (even though he's wiretapped all of Europe before) and relegated to the "this also happened" section.. Yesterday there was nothing about it that I could find.

CNN's international site (edition.cnn.com) leads with "How were they leaked?"

Yeah the tiny amount of coverage I've seen on it on liberal sites like Huffpo is "who is responsible for this leak?", and not "HOLY SHIT the CIA can do what?!"

They can listen to me eat cheetos and masturbate via my tv. I already assumed (hoped) this was true.

I stand by the following previous statements:
1. TV news is a terrible way to stay informed.

2. Conversations about TV news should acknowledge their primary status as news-based entertainment, and they should not be included in any evaluative conversation about journalism.

3. Huffington Post is basically People magazine, and more people read it for inspiring articles about how some lady's divorce was the best thing she's ever done for her kids (or OMG Alec Baldwin crushed it on SNL snark snark) than to learn anything about anything.

[bune]

Yeah, but, is anyone even surprised by this leak? It just feels like, "yeah...eh". It is wrong and it is scary, but it's not a shocker.

After Snowden, it's hard to muster any shock about what the CIA can and does do. To be honest, I'd be disappointed if they couldn't hack into my car and make me drive off a cliff.

Well...

https://www.wired.com/2016/08/jeep-hack ... ion-hacks/

Yeah, but, is anyone even surprised by this leak? It just feels like, "yeah...eh". It is wrong and it is scary, but it's not a shocker.

After Snowden, it's hard to muster any shock about what the CIA can and does do. To be honest, I'd be disappointed if they couldn't hack into my car and make me drive off a cliff.

https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-r ... p-highway/

Ha, I have a newer article! But it's good someone else remembered that happening.

[Strat]

Yeah, but, is anyone even surprised by this leak? It just feels like, "yeah...eh". It is wrong and it is scary, but it's not a shocker.

After Snowden, it's hard to muster any shock about what the CIA can and does do. To be honest, I'd be disappointed if they couldn't hack into my car and make me drive off a cliff.

Well...

https://www.wired.com/2016/08/jeep-hack ... ion-hacks/

Lol. I just posted that.

[McParadigm]

If the CIA can't spy on me via my appliances, then no one has ever watched me get blown on the couch, and that means I need to get a dog pronto.

[BurtReynolds]

There's two stories on the right side of the screen with no scrolling required. And I agree it's a big story.

Sorry I was talking about the mobile version. It probably deserves more attention than "Obama is really mad" (even though he's wiretapped all of Europe before) and relegated to the "this also happened" section.. Yesterday there was nothing about it that I could find.

CNN's international site (edition.cnn.com) leads with "How were they leaked?"

Yeah the tiny amount of coverage I've seen on it on liberal sites like Huffpo is "who is responsible for this leak?", and not "HOLY SHIT the CIA can do what?!"

They can listen to me eat cheetos and masturbate via my tv. I already assumed (hoped) this was true.

I stand by the following previous statements:
1. TV news is a terrible way to stay informed.

2. Conversations about TV news should acknowledge their primary status as news-based entertainment, and they should not be included in any evaluative conversation about journalism.

3. Huffington Post is basically People magazine, and more people read it for inspiring articles about how some lady's divorce was the best thing she's ever done for her kids (or OMG Alec Baldwin crushed it on SNL snark snark) than to learn anything about anything.

agreed on all points, just making the point in case SOMEONE *cough*Strat*cough* was dumb enough to think these are real journalism.

[Strat]

There's two stories on the right side of the screen with no scrolling required. And I agree it's a big story.

Sorry I was talking about the mobile version. It probably deserves more attention than "Obama is really mad" (even though he's wiretapped all of Europe before) and relegated to the "this also happened" section.. Yesterday there was nothing about it that I could find.

CNN's international site (edition.cnn.com) leads with "How were they leaked?"

Yeah the tiny amount of coverage I've seen on it on liberal sites like Huffpo is "who is responsible for this leak?", and not "HOLY SHIT the CIA can do what?!"

They can listen to me eat cheetos and masturbate via my tv. I already assumed (hoped) this was true.

I stand by the following previous statements:
1. TV news is a terrible way to stay informed.

2. Conversations about TV news should acknowledge their primary status as news-based entertainment, and they should not be included in any evaluative conversation about journalism.

3. Huffington Post is basically People magazine, and more people read it for inspiring articles about how some lady's divorce was the best thing she's ever done for her kids (or OMG Alec Baldwin crushed it on SNL snark snark) than to learn anything about anything.

agreed on all points, just making the point in case SOMEONE *cough*Strat*cough* was dumb enough to think these are real journalism.

All i did, like others, was point out how wrong your assessment was. You flew off the handle burt. its okay to be wrong from time to time.

And who watches cable tv anymore anyway?

[BurtReynolds]

There's two stories on the right side of the screen with no scrolling required. And I agree it's a big story.

Sorry I was talking about the mobile version. It probably deserves more attention than "Obama is really mad" (even though he's wiretapped all of Europe before) and relegated to the "this also happened" section.. Yesterday there was nothing about it that I could find.

CNN's international site (edition.cnn.com) leads with "How were they leaked?"

Yeah the tiny amount of coverage I've seen on it on liberal sites like Huffpo is "who is responsible for this leak?", and not "HOLY SHIT the CIA can do what?!"

They can listen to me eat cheetos and masturbate via my tv. I already assumed (hoped) this was true.

I stand by the following previous statements:
1. TV news is a terrible way to stay informed.

2. Conversations about TV news should acknowledge their primary status as news-based entertainment, and they should not be included in any evaluative conversation about journalism.

3. Huffington Post is basically People magazine, and more people read it for inspiring articles about how some lady's divorce was the best thing she's ever done for her kids (or OMG Alec Baldwin crushed it on SNL snark snark) than to learn anything about anything.

agreed on all points, just making the point in case SOMEONE *cough*Strat*cough* was dumb enough to think these are real journalism.

All i did, like others, was point out how wrong your assessment was. You flew off the handle burt. its okay to be wrong from time to time.

And who watches cable tv anymore anyway?

omg Strat I can't even deal with you today. My assessment was not wrong, though I probably should have been more clear. I just woke up.

[Strat]

There's two stories on the right side of the screen with no scrolling required. And I agree it's a big story.

Sorry I was talking about the mobile version. It probably deserves more attention than "Obama is really mad" (even though he's wiretapped all of Europe before) and relegated to the "this also happened" section.. Yesterday there was nothing about it that I could find.

CNN's international site (edition.cnn.com) leads with "How were they leaked?"

Yeah the tiny amount of coverage I've seen on it on liberal sites like Huffpo is "who is responsible for this leak?", and not "HOLY SHIT the CIA can do what?!"

They can listen to me eat cheetos and masturbate via my tv. I already assumed (hoped) this was true.

I stand by the following previous statements:
1. TV news is a terrible way to stay informed.

2. Conversations about TV news should acknowledge their primary status as news-based entertainment, and they should not be included in any evaluative conversation about journalism.

3. Huffington Post is basically People magazine, and more people read it for inspiring articles about how some lady's divorce was the best thing she's ever done for her kids (or OMG Alec Baldwin crushed it on SNL snark snark) than to learn anything about anything.

agreed on all points, just making the point in case SOMEONE *cough*Strat*cough* was dumb enough to think these are real journalism.

All i did, like others, was point out how wrong your assessment was. You flew off the handle burt. its okay to be wrong from time to time.

And who watches cable tv anymore anyway?

omg Strat I can't even deal with you today. My assessment was not wrong, though I probably should have been more clear. I just woke up.

"CNN.com (and other outlets) completely ignoring the latest wikileaks story is pretty shocking even by liberal media standards."

Okay, burt. That was your initial assessment. Then you started back tracking. You were wrong. Calm down and get over it. You are okay in my book.

[BurtReynolds]

Trump news: "Anonymous leaks confirm Trump administration in complete disarray! Here are all the juicy details!"

CIA news (if they bother to report on it): "OMG who is the plant leaking info in the CIA!"

[BurtReynolds]

There's two stories on the right side of the screen with no scrolling required. And I agree it's a big story.

Sorry I was talking about the mobile version. It probably deserves more attention than "Obama is really mad" (even though he's wiretapped all of Europe before) and relegated to the "this also happened" section.. Yesterday there was nothing about it that I could find.

CNN's international site (edition.cnn.com) leads with "How were they leaked?"

Yeah the tiny amount of coverage I've seen on it on liberal sites like Huffpo is "who is responsible for this leak?", and not "HOLY SHIT the CIA can do what?!"

They can listen to me eat cheetos and masturbate via my tv. I already assumed (hoped) this was true.

I stand by the following previous statements:
1. TV news is a terrible way to stay informed.

2. Conversations about TV news should acknowledge their primary status as news-based entertainment, and they should not be included in any evaluative conversation about journalism.

3. Huffington Post is basically People magazine, and more people read it for inspiring articles about how some lady's divorce was the best thing she's ever done for her kids (or OMG Alec Baldwin crushed it on SNL snark snark) than to learn anything about anything.

agreed on all points, just making the point in case SOMEONE *cough*Strat*cough* was dumb enough to think these are real journalism.

All i did, like others, was point out how wrong your assessment was. You flew off the handle burt. its okay to be wrong from time to time.

And who watches cable tv anymore anyway?

omg Strat I can't even deal with you today. My assessment was not wrong, though I probably should have been more clear. I just woke up.

"CNN.com (and other outlets) completely ignoring the latest wikileaks story is pretty shocking even by liberal media standards."

Okay, burt. That was your initial assessment. Then you started back tracking. You were wrong. Calm down and get over it. You are okay in my book.

you're right. I shouldn't have said completely. Only mostly. I will kill myself in shame now.

[E.H. Ruddock]

I'm mildly surprised by anyone who didn't already think that the government could and would do these things, tbh. Maybe I just watch too many movies.