-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
the truly bizarre thing to me is that trump is a notorious liar, exaaggerator etc. he just makes shit up, spouts off with no evidence - and is happy as a pig in shit with it. just brushes it off when it is pointed out t be false. eg obama birth, wiretapping, comey tapes, voter fraud, etc etc. he trivialises and ignores serious issues (russia) which don't suit him.
then CNN retracts a story because it turned out false - they ran it on 1 source without confirmation. people get sacked. sure they show bias, as do Fox etc.and you have trump's supporters crying in outrage at the 'fake news', lies of the MSM etc. which is exactly what trump does, all of the time. he has exactly the media he deserves.
the double standard is hilarious, and that is the real trump derangement syndrome right there.
Yeah nah.. except you seem to be working under the assumption this is all about one network and one story.. it isn't. This is about systemic FAR left bias in the MSM.
Which is now finally being exposed.
Your first sentence is just a load of nonsense so full of things demonstrably wrong it is pointless even discussing it. -
This post is deleted!
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback yeah nah. he does lie, he does exaggerate, he does make shit up. he does spout off without evidence.
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
Theory: This is one of Trump's tactics to play the media.
Tweet below.
He purposely makes the mistake of saying John Podesta was in charge of the DNC, not Debbie Wasserman-Schulz. MSM will jump all over the 'mistake' and say what an idiot he is for not knowing that, inadvertently reporting the real question of the tweet. Without this 'mistake', they will not report it. -
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Salacious-Crumb All very well and yes it is something of a mess but the (much) bigger story should be that three agencies ARE investigating possible foreign interference in the US election. That is yuuuge but seemingly lost in a lot of he said/she said trivial shite.
Yeah, three agencies who can't even agree on an "assessment," and they have ZERO evidence for any of it.
What's yuuuuge is same "hand-picked" intelligence clowns swore to us that not only did Saddam have stockpiles of mushroom clouds but they "we know where they are," with the cute little caveat of "just imagine."
The reason these so-called "investigations" (translations - "fishing expeditions" and "witch-hunts") are even a matter is because the Podesta gang came up with this conspiracy-a-go-go sewer garbage as an excuse within 24 hours of their girl Hillary going catatonic and cowardly unable to give a concession speech to her supporters.
At this point it's entirely politically driven. They can't find ANY evidence so are now proceeding with ridiculous "obstruction" charges despite still not getting DNC and Podesta servers entered as evidence, just the same b.s.
Rooskiegate is the new WMD redux, and a paid third-party Crowdstrike telling us to "Trust us" is the new "Just imagine."
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
Theory: This is one of Trump's tactics to play the media.
Tweet below.
He purposely makes the mistake of saying John Podesta was in charge of the DNC, not Debbie Wasserman-Schulz. MSM will jump all over the 'mistake' and say what an idiot he is for not knowing that, inadvertently reporting the real question of the tweet. Without this 'mistake', they will not report it.It is a good trick, but he's conflating the two. It's BOTH the DNC server AND the Podesta server that they are refusing to turn over. The "Resistance" needs to drag this scam out for as long as possible before it gets confirmed as a colossal hoax. Fifteen years ago NYT millionaire columnist Tom Friedman kept giving us what are now called "Friedman Units" about the search for WMD. Oh, they're there, he'd swear, "just give us six more months," rinse-recycle-repeat every six months. That's what Podesta and gang are trying to pull off here. The same six-more-month nonsense, we'll keep deep-sea fishing until we catch a guppy.
-
@Salacious-Crumb hang on a sec. All the stuff about the Russians trying to influence the election is a never happened lie, just partisan nonsense from the democrats no? But these are the same people responsible for the WMD stuff with Bush? Didn't realise that one was a democrat conspiracy too.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Salacious-Crumb hang on a sec. All the stuff about the Russians trying to influence the election is a never happened lie, just partisan nonsense from the democrats no? But these are the same people responsible for the WMD stuff with Bush? Didn't realise that one was a democrat conspiracy too.
You've bought into the fake paradigm that pro-war intelligence agencies -- what Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander WW2 and US President during Cold War, warned about the "Military Industrial Complex" -- exclusively wears a red tie or a blue tie. Isn't it possible they might wear both? Or neither?? Trump ran against the Establishment -- including the warmonger globalists in BOTH parties. Same intelligence agencies that swore to us about aluminum tubes and yellowcake and anthrax and Niger forgeries and balsa-wood drones nuking London in 45 minutes and "we know where the WMD are" are the same agencies "assessing" that Rooskies stole emails from a server that John Podesta refuses to turn over to the FBI. Please excuse my deeply-irrational common-sense skepticism.
-
New university study shockingly doesn't blame Rooskies for Hillary losing election.
Clinton lost because war-ravaged communities in PA, WI, and MI saw her as pro-war, study says
The study analysis makes too many obvious points that CNN and MSNBC will never even consider let alone report, including the obvious point that the elites in government and media who manufacture and sell wars have a less than 1/10th of 1 percent chance of actually being personally affected by a casualty of war and demonstrating how pathetically detached and out of touch they are with real people.
-
@Salacious-Crumb hang on a sec. aren't universities just mouthpieces for the far regressive left agenda these days?
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Salacious-Crumb hang on a sec. aren't universities just mouthpieces for the far regressive left agenda these days?
Mainly the administrative and humanities arms. But at least you finally acknowledge it. Small steps.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback yeah nah. he does lie, he does exaggerate, he does make shit up. he does spout off without evidence.
Name a president that didnt.
-
Come on Baron, take 3 minutes to elucidate why you think Donald Trump has what it'll take to try to right this ship known as the US of A and in reality, most of the western world.
Surely most agree that the joint is in a
fucken messless than ideal state due to ridiculous substance-less ideologies getting in the way of pragmatic human progress.So why Donald?
I'm genuinely curious because if I learn he's worth a punt, then in the void of decent current leadership , I'll take it.
(World politics are looking increasingly bleak to me right now.)
But you (and all Trump supporters) must realise that for most who've been around enough to have met most types, the videos we've seen, unadulterated, straight from the horse's mouth, for over 20 years, well, he's a bragging fuckwit, mate.
And you never give the benefit of the doubt to a blowhard - it's a kiwi constant
What's he got that'll make him successful in this particular sphere?
He's definitely got the balls and front to deal with all the spurious and dishonest malcontents, which CNN seem to be heading up.
And, we can be certain that this world of slander and "Trump derangement syndrome" (a truly ambivalent phrase) doesn't phase him.
So Trump proponents, apart from the fact that he won the race, why the confidence that this guy will influence and generate a world that we all can benefit from?
What do you see in him?
Genuine question
.
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Salacious-Crumb All very well and yes it is something of a mess but the (much) bigger story should be that three agencies ARE investigating possible foreign interference in the US election. That is yuuuge but seemingly lost in a lot of he said/she said trivial shite.
Yeah, three agencies who can't even agree on an "assessment," and they have ZERO evidence for any of it.
What's yuuuuge is same "hand-picked" intelligence clowns swore to us that not only did Saddam have stockpiles of mushroom clouds but they "we know where they are," with the cute little caveat of "just imagine."
The reason these so-called "investigations" (translations - "fishing expeditions" and "witch-hunts") are even a matter is because the Podesta gang came up with this conspiracy-a-go-go sewer garbage as an excuse within 24 hours of their girl Hillary going catatonic and cowardly unable to give a concession speech to her supporters.
At this point it's entirely politically driven. They can't find ANY evidence so are now proceeding with ridiculous "obstruction" charges despite still not getting DNC and Podesta servers entered as evidence, just the same b.s.
Rooskiegate is the new WMD redux, and a paid third-party Crowdstrike telling us to "Trust us" is the new "Just imagine."
Mate, I've re-thought my response to this several times now and probably ought to re-think things some more but it is not really worth it so here goes.
Firstly a cogent argument in plain English without all the emotive imagery would be helpful.
Secondly rather than just coming up with some more "whatabouttery" regarding Podesta etc, why not address the actual point I was making. Possible (please note the word) foreign interference in the US election, is a huge issue. The fact that you do not believe these agencies because what may of happened some years before is not the issue here. Are they the same agencies? Are they the same people? Do they have the same motivations? You do not know any of this.
You argue that the three agencies have ZERO evidence for the possible interference in the election and then bring up the WMD fiasco which again there is no hard evidence. Lots of suppositions, probably quite likely but no evidence as yet.
You can't have that particular argument both ways.
US Politics