Trumps Chinese bank account

[GreatLakes4Ever]

So does that mean the New York Times verified the information or no?

I’m sure the “Paper of Record” verified all of this went to print. If they didn’t Trump would have released his tax returns and shown that The New York Times was wrong and sued them for libel. The fact Trump hasn’t gone this route shows that The New York Times info is correct.

 

[Tom 1]

...the U.S. under Trump is a case study on how shockingly easy it is to manipulate the population.

That’s an interesting point, the fact that a fair number of people are more than happy to swallow the most bald-faced nonsense whole makes it seem like there must be some wider context, some way of looking at the world that means someone like Trump can easily get people to think whatever he wants. The whole news as partisan messaging thing seems like a chicken and egg question, is Fox so popular because they just repeat and reinforce what people have already decided must be the case, or do they actually drive the narrative? Either way there is an obvious predisposition to believe certain things over others regardless of any actual events that can be considered on their own merits. The better quality press requires the reader to question their own ideas as well as what is published, so maybe that’s why people prefer shows like Fox, because there is no requirement to think other than to follow predetermined lines of ‘argument’.

 

[rambot]

But that's not what you've been repeatedly told.

What the NY Times and other outlets have reported on are deals, contacts, etc. between Trump and Russians, the Trump companies and Russian entities, the Trump campaign and Russians, and various Trump associates and Russian entities. Many of these Russian entities and persons are connected to the Russian state, especially to the intel apparatus or Russian org. crime. We also know that the Russian state interfered in the previous election whether Trump or his associates were aware of it.

None of this makes Trump a Russian agent (i.e., some one working for the Russian government) and to my knowledge no responsible US media outlet has made such an assessment. If anti-Trump bloggers or marginal media analysis sites do so, that doesn't mean that they are right or that the professional press has done so.

Short answer: "The big media outlets have *not* labeled Trump a "Russian agent".

Excellent point. Labels are not being used. Or, if they are, it is happenning on decided, AND LABELLED, op-eds. But those labels are based on ALLLLLLL those pieces of evidence listed.

And none of those pieces of evidence are ever denied or contradicted. EVER. Caricatures are given, either by us online OR by folks who say "You're saying he's an agent" when we provide evidence instead of just acknowledging evidence as troubling or indicative of a problem.

 

[rambot]

T How many retractions have they printed since the entire thing was disproven?
.

Well, nothing was really disproven.

But let's get to the meat of this.

You don't even KNOW how many retractions they have printed in that time, do you? You assume a LOT. You assume so many they are not no longer reliable.
But, you don't actually know how many. And I'm not falling for this. I'm not starting to think "Oh. I guess the NYT is not reliable because they've had so many retractions". This is another strategy Trump does but only weak minded people fall for. Strong minded people will recognize that no actual proof was given; just an insinuating question was asked.

So, instead of asking us, the people who think the NYT is an organization of principle, I would suggest those people who think the NYT is an organization without principle or skill, that you should provide TANGIBLE evidence on which you base your opinion. I would assume that you'd be able to provide quite a treasure trove of answers.

IF you want to prove you are being FAIR in your assessment, then I'm sure this would be a reasonable expectation.

That or posters just prefer to disregards stories that are inconvenient to them baselessly.

 

[HTacianas]

Well, nothing was really disproven.

But let's get to the meat of this.

You don't even KNOW how many retractions they have printed in that time, do you? You assume a LOT. You assume so many they are not no longer reliable.
But, you don't actually know how many. And I'm not falling for this. I'm not starting to think "Oh. I guess the NYT is not reliable because they've had so many retractions". This is another strategy Trump does but only weak minded people fall for. Strong minded people will recognize that no actual proof was given; just an insinuating question was asked.

So, instead of asking us, the people who think the NYT is an organization of principle, I would suggest those people who think the NYT is an organization without principle or skill, that you should provide TANGIBLE evidence on which you base your opinion. I would assume that you'd be able to provide quite a treasure trove of answers.

IF you want to prove you are being FAIR in your assessment, then I'm sure this would be a reasonable expectation.

That or posters just prefer to disregards stories that are inconvenient to them baselessly.

You don't even KNOW how many retractions they have printed in that time, do you?

Yes. I do. Zero. Zero retractions. Of all the stories published by the New York Times (and others) claiming that Trump colluded with Russia, or was a Russian spy, or was a Russian asset, or however you want to put it, when it all turned out to be false not a single retraction was printed. They simply moved on to the next inflammatory anonymously sourced contrived controversy. And yes, the New York Times participated in it and continues to participate in it.

So from now on whenever I read about some controversy about Trump published in the New York Times -without even a high school newsletter level of verification- I will assume it's false. I have to go with the odds.

 

[Kentonio]

...the U.S. under Trump is a case study on how shockingly easy it is to manipulate the population.

To be fair I don’t think it’s just the US public, I think any population would be vulnerable to it if it was couched in their culture and language. Trump has proven that a huge number of people just can’t process being constantly lied to. It’s something we just don’t usually face in normal life, and it’s so incessant and so loud that I think it just overloads people’s thinking.

 

[rambot]

Yes. I do. Zero. Zero retractions. Of all the stories published by the New York Times (and others) claiming that Trump colluded with Russia, or was a Russian spy, or was a Russian asset, or however you want to put it, when it all turned out to be false not a single retraction was printed. They simply moved on to the next inflammatory anonymously sourced contrived controversy. And yes, the New York Times participated in it and continues to participate in it.

1) The thought has not, for even a SECOND, crossed your mind that the NYT didn't do any of the things you are claiming right? I would love to see articles where those labels were used.
You may be inferring things like he was a "Russian asset"; heck, you may have even correctly inferred that BASED on the facts that they reported. But the NYT cannot be held responsible for how you choose to process their information.
2) You are conflating the word "claiming Trump is a [label]" with "reporting on Trump's actions".

Do you HONESTLY think Trump would not be sueing them for Libel if he had legal grounds to do so? Because he's such a forgiving guy when "he's attacked"?

So from now on whenever I read about some controversy about Trump published in the New York Times -without even a high school newsletter level of verification- I will assume it's false. I have to go with the odds.

Pffft. Odds.
You've provided ABSOLUTELY no evidence that they are untrustworthy and ABSOLUTELY no evidence of the claims you've made so far. In fact, you yourself have noted they haven't HAD TO print a single retraction. You would also note that Trump has not levied legal action against them either, nor has Trump taken meaningful steps to disprove any of their reporting.

But instead of accepting that as evidence that they are providing facts, you double down that they are just dishonest instead.

It's interesting watching people think they are being impartial and reasonable when they are not.

 

[Tom 1]

Yes. I do. Zero. Zero retractions. Of all the stories published by the New York Times (and others) claiming that Trump colluded with Russia, or was a Russian spy, or was a Russian asset, or however you want to put it, when it all turned out to be false not a single retraction was printed. They simply moved on to the next inflammatory anonymously sourced contrived controversy. And yes, the New York Times participated in it and continues to participate in it.

So from now on whenever I read about some controversy about Trump published in the New York Times -without even a high school newsletter level of verification- I will assume it's false. I have to go with the odds.

Please link to any article from the NYT claiming that Trump is or was colluding with Russia, a Russian spy or asset, or making any similar definite claim.

 

[rambot]

To be fair I don’t think it’s just the US public, I think any population would be vulnerable to it if it was couched in their culture and language. Trump has proven that a huge number of people just can’t process being constantly lied to. It’s something we just don’t usually face in normal life, and it’s so incessant and so loud that I think it just overloads people’s thinking.

But with the constant stream of it, and the low level chaos and distrust it stirs up, so long as he has another gaffe, he doesn't have to be held responsible for the previous one.

In that way, I do see the news media as being super complicit in Trump's America. Unfortunately, they have an obligation to report it too.

 

[Kentonio]

But with the constant stream of it, and the low level chaos and distrust it stirs up, so long as he has another gaffe, he doesn't have to be held responsible for the previous one.

In that way, I do see the news media as being super complicit in Trump's America. Unfortunately, they have an obligation to report it too.

I think they were in a no win situation. Do you just not report when the President of the United States says or does something outrageous? If they hadn’t they’d have been accused of covering for him.

 

[rambot]

I think they were in a no win situation. Do you just not report when the President of the United States says or does something outrageous? If they hadn’t they’d have been accused of covering for him.

exactly

 

[Richard T]

Am I to assume then, that there is a SOLID and justifiable reason for this bank account to go unreported until now?

I have no idea. I was addressing the absurdity of the comparison. If you want to trash Trump for nondisclosure, the IRS under the penalties of perjury require you to disclose all foreign bank accounts. I do not think this was a personal account though so it would only be disclosed on a company account. As to whether this was an ethics violation, I am not familiar enough with the procedures as to what exactly is supposed to be reported.

 

[rambot]

I have no idea. I was addressing the absurdity of the comparison. If you want to trash Trump for nondisclosure, the IRS under the penalties of perjury require you to disclose all foreign bank accounts. I do not think this was a personal account though so it would only be disclosed on a company account. As to whether this was an ethics violation, I am not familiar enough with the procedures as to what exactly is supposed to be reported.

While I generally agree with you and am not committal to this being a TERRIBLE thing, I do think it's WELL within the realm of possibility that Trump would not disclose that account.