Trump, his Taxes and the Russians

The only problem with your story is that it isn't true. Once more this is a case of Trump playing loose with the facts. So, no....we can't go back and forth all night because one of us is providing facts and the other is taking Donald Trump's word for it.....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/
"There’s a grain of truth in this claim. Clinton’s State Department was one of nine government agencies to approve Russia’s acquisition of a company with U.S. uranium assets. Nine people related the company at some point in time donated to the Clinton Foundation, but we only found evidence that one did so "while" the Russian deal was occurring. The bulk of the $145 million in donations came two years before the deal.
Trump is certainly within his right to question the indisputable links between Clinton Foundation donors and their ties to Uranium One, but Trump’s charge exaggerates the links. More importantly, his suggestion of a quid pro quo is unsubstantiated, as Schweizer the author of Clinton Cash himself has admitted.
On the most basic level, Trump’s timeline is off. Most of the donations occurred before Clinton was named secretary of state.
We rate Trump’s claim Mostly False."

 

I'm still waiting for you to explain how a blog and an article written by the same person on the same day is considered a useless source when I post it, but a legit source when you do.

So your problem with what I posted was that Trump exaggerated.....which means you agree, at the least, that some donations do prove that Hillary had dealings with a Russian company that ultimately gained 20% of America's uranium production, that she signed off on the deal when SoS, and that she did not report the earnings to Obama. Nice!

 

because one is a blog post and the other is an article. you asked for the difference and I posted the link and spelled it out for you. would you like me to hold your hand through it? a blog is a quickie opinion that requires no citation, expert interviews or real research. it also does not have to meet the standard of an editor. it is an op-ed. an article is the opposite. an article has to cite sources, must include expert opinion and interviews and, finally, must pass the approval of an editor. So it really doesn't matter that it was the same author, the context is different. What you are really doing is deflecting from the fact that in the article the writer explains in great detail why the US banks will not deal with Trump any more.

In fact, you've done nothing but deflect the entire time.....can you defend Trump's Russian ties or not?

You should be feeling duped by the man right about now but I don't think you even realize it. Daily this guy gets up and spews absolute bull shit from his mouth and you buy it hook, line and sinker. Trump took a set of circumstances, outlined in the article, and turned them into his own narrative. The article clearly stated that with the exception of one investor all of the donations to the Clinton Foundation were made two years prior to her taking the job. But hell, what do the facts matter right? They never stopped Trump from making up a story did they? It like Trump's spokesperson today blaming Obama for Captain Khan's death in Iraq in 2004......what do those pesky dates mean anyway, right? If you cannot see this pattern with the Trump campaign then you are one of the ones who will also believe him on election night when he claims the election was rigged.

 

You mean like this ARTICLE from the National Enquirer?

Richard Simmons 'living as a woman': Fitness guru 'has had breast surgery and hormone therapy'

• 15:04, 8 JUN 2016
• UPDATED 15:12, 8 JUN 2016
• BY REBECCA POCKLINGTON

The star is reportedly undergoing hormone therapy, according to shock new US reports - claims his rep has denied

• The star is reportedly undergoing hormone therapy, according to shock new US reports - claims his rep has denied
  

Getty/National Enquirer
Simmons hit with shock claims
Richard Simmons is now living as a woman, according to shock new US reports.

The famous fitness guru, 67, was rushed to hospital after suffering from severe dehydration just days ago, but now explosive new reports claim he's been secretly living as a woman for months - claims his rep has denied.

According to the National Enquirer , Richard has already had breast enhancement surgery, and has been undergoing hormone therapy for two years.

He reportedly now goes by the name 'Fiona', and explosive photos - published on the front of the mag - show him with long flowing brunette hair and a new, curvier figure.



National Enquirer
The shocking new cover




Getty
Richard Simmons in 2013


A source told the publication: “[This is] not just Richard Simmons in drag. This is Richard dressed as a softly spoken woman named Fiona!”

The mag even claims he's been venturing out of his Hollywood Hills home dressed as a woman for months.

However, when asked about the claims, Simmons' rep told us: "Not true ..."

He has previously shared photos of himself dressed up in women's clothes, including one of him in a purple dress and with with the caption: "Go on and have yourself a FABULOUS Friday!"



Wire
Richard Simmons and Katy Perry attend the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards



It comes days after the star was rushed to hospital, reportedly with dehydration, but he later took to Facebook to confirm he was doing OK.

He wrote in a new post: "Thank you to everyone who has reached out with love and concern after hearing I was in the hospital. I was dehydrated and needed some fluids and now I am feeling great! Summer is here - drink plenty of liquids. Big hugs and kisses for caring."

The star posted a selfie, smiling and showing his shorter hair.


The star's nanny and caretaker reportedly called 911 when she noticed him acting strangely at his home - and he was released three days later, on Monday, after being treated for dehydration.

Simmons has disappeared from the limelight over the last few years, with rumours swirling previously that he had been "kidnapped".

But he previously spoke out to deny the claims, and said: "No one should be worried about me. The people that surround me are wonderful people who take great care of me."









Up to £533 off energy bills. Compare nowPlay the 5 star fantasy foot

 

The National Enquirer is not the Wall Street Journal and I'll just leave it right there.

 

And yet, it's an article and not a blog post. By your own standards any article has more veracity than any blog post. There are lots of respected, responsible bloggers and lots of muckraking article writers.

 

I didn't just make this up yesterday my friend....I am simply quoting the definition of what a blogger is and what a writer is and the difference in the two. A blogger is not bound to facts, they are offering an opinion. A writer of a journalistic article is bound to the standards of journalism, which include integrity and honesty in their reporting. When a journalist doesn't do this they get the Brian Williams treatment. I don't think anyone will ever confuse the National Enquirer of being real journalism. The Wall Street Journal is a reputable publication and has been for a very long time and I feel certain that they recognize the difference between a piece of journalism and a blog. You do not have to believe go Google "whats the difference between a blog and an article" and see for yourself.

 

Are you missing the point that it was the same author or intentionally being obtuse?

 

The latter. Although, I wouldn't completely rule out both.

 

I posted the National Enquirer article to make a point but these days the distinction between a blog and a news source is pretty blurred. Lots of people get a good deal of their news from the Huffington Post The HP is considered to be the largest blog on the internet. But what is the difference between HP and WSJ, WAPO, CNN or Fox News? Those organizations have blogs as well as print and broadcast facilities and all of them state opinions and call them facts. There is very little journalistic integrity anymore. If I have a blog I write articles and post them to my blog. The Huffington Post doesn't do print or broadcast media
(unless they do and I just haven't seen it.)