US Elections 2016

[Rab]

I would very much like for American hegemony to end -- it's bad for us and it's bad for the rest of the world. But two highly authoritarian states appear to be the ones most poised to take advantage of that. I would far rather that other strong liberal democracies were ready to step into the breach.  There's a small but actually believable chance that we're entering a period where the US will require Germany to step in to save us from fascism -- irony of ironies.

 

Clinton Foundation "scandals," similar to the email server, basically boil down to using the work phone to make fundraising calls.  That's on the level of Bill letting their big donors have a night in the Lincoln bedroom in the White House.  Yes, it's bad practice, but as scandals go it's about up there with being caught stealing a box of pens and a box of paper clips from the office supply cabinet while Trump is openly using his newfound political power to score multi-million dollar business deals.

 

Hope you get some rest -- JKB can wait.

 

While I expect we probably agree on the reality of what's happening, I can't help but read this and see how huge numbers of voters who were already predisposed to mistrust Democrats start foaming at the mouth when anyone says 'email server" or "Benghazi". Liberals need to realise that the Clintons have been caught more than once with their hand in the cookie jar and simply claiming "it wasn't that bad" just makes the situation worse, to the point where enough of the nation distrusted them sufficiently to elect Donald Trump as the President.

 

Also, there's an implication there that what the world needs is a "strong, liberal democracy". There are many, many people across the world who would disagree with that.

 

Lastly, the idea the the Germans may save the US from fascism is unusual. There are huge racial and ideological issues all over Europe right now and Germany is right in the middle of them. What makes you think their problems are so small, and the USA's are so large?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Your heart i suppose is in the right place but you choose to ignore how corrupt the clintons are and excuse their behaviour by saying others are worse.

 

You also because of your political outlook choose to ignore the cia involvement in world affairs of the past decade because obamas been president.

 

But hey i only listen to fake news and you and others are so clever you can distinguish from the msm whats true and whats not.

 

I did mean to respond to the earlier post but feel you and others have no respect and not you so much just resort to name calling.

 

As for the assumption that we have a free democracy i find that laughable .

There is virtually no difference between main stream political parties in most western democracies.

And indeed your precious clintons rigged their own parties elections.

 

Once again i ask you and jambo x2 to provide a list of media outlets that i can read which i should believe.

 

I don't think I've called you names, but my wife had our first kid last week so I'm up late a lot with her these days and my memory isn't the steel trap (full of mice) that it usually is.  I am exasperated with Trump supporters, including a few on this thread, along with our pair of conspiracy theorists who are incapable of carrying on a sane conversation.  You said you weren't a Trump supporter (I think?) and I take you at your word.

 

To my understanding governments in Brazil, India, and Indonesia have reversed planning decisions in favor of the Trump brand since his election.  Is this to curry favor with him?  I mean, I suppose it's possible they just happened to take another look at the plans and changed their minds...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/world/asia/indonesia-donald-trump-resort.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

 

More on Trump's conflicts of interest:

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trumps-conflicts-will-be-crippling/article/2608063

 

Meanwhile Trump has continued his long-standing business practice of bilking contractors after completion:

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/third-contractor-says-trump-didnt-pay-dc-hotel-work

 

What news outlets should you trust completely?  None.  Not one of them. Every news outlet has its business model, its target audience, its favorite advertisers, its quirky owners or managers, and so forth.  Some build their reputation around being fastidious with both facts and grammar but will sweep stories they don't like under the rug (like the New York Times).  Some build their living on having the most reporters anywhere covering the US federal government but have had an ideological axe to grind for decades (like the Washington Post).  Some are all about ratings (the network TV news sources).  Some are rabidly partisan and proud of it (the Nation, National Review).  And some are run almost entirely as propaganda machines for a particular political viewpoint (the Murdoch empire).  Some have become vehicles for the "alt-right," a cozy and geeky sounding name for American white nationalism (Breitbart).  And some exist just to get clicks for fake news articles (too many to name).  Don't read a news source whose bias you don't know, and only give any credence to news sources who take some care to document and source their information.

 

As to the "both parties" accusation, that used to be true but it's not anymore, starting roughly around 1994 with Newt Gingrich.  The GOP has gone off the deep end and is dragging the country with it, and this "both sides" nonsense normalizes it.  The Democratic party has enormous problems which if we weren't facing self-serving nihilists right now we could be trying to sort out, but the next four years will be an all-out political war in the US the likes of which we haven't seen since Reconstruction.

[jake]

I don't think I've called you names, but my wife had our first kid last week so I'm up late a lot with her these days and my memory isn't the steel trap (full of mice) that it usually is. I am exasperated with Trump supporters, including a few on this thread, along with our pair of conspiracy theorists who are incapable of carrying on a sane conversation. You said you weren't a Trump supporter (I think?) and I take you at your word.

 

To my understanding governments in Brazil, India, and Indonesia have reversed planning decisions in favor of the Trump brand since his election. Is this to curry favor with him? I mean, I suppose it's possible they just happened to take another look at the plans and changed their minds...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/world/asia/indonesia-donald-trump-resort.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

 

More on Trump's conflicts of interest:

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trumps-conflicts-will-be-crippling/article/2608063

 

Meanwhile Trump has continued his long-standing business practice of bilking contractors after completion:

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/third-contractor-says-trump-didnt-pay-dc-hotel-work

 

What news outlets should you trust completely? None. Not one of them. Every news outlet has its business model, its target audience, its favorite advertisers, its quirky owners or managers, and so forth. Some build their reputation around being fastidious with both facts and grammar but will sweep stories they don't like under the rug (like the New York Times). Some build their living on having the most reporters anywhere covering the US federal government but have had an ideological axe to grind for decades (like the Washington Post). Some are all about ratings (the network TV news sources). Some are rabidly partisan and proud of it (the Nation, National Review). And some are run almost entirely as propaganda machines for a particular political viewpoint (the Murdoch empire). Some have become vehicles for the "alt-right," a cozy and geeky sounding name for American white nationalism (Breitbart). And some exist just to get clicks for fake news articles (too many to name). Don't read a news source whose bias you don't know, and only give any credence to news sources who take some care to document and source their information.

 

As to the "both parties" accusation, that used to be true but it's not anymore, starting roughly around 1994 with Newt Gingrich. The GOP has gone off the deep end and is dragging the country with it, and this "both sides" nonsense normalizes it. The Democratic party has enormous problems which if we weren't facing self-serving nihilists right now we could be trying to sort out, but the next four years will be an all-out political war in the US the likes of which we haven't seen since Reconstruction.

 

You haven't called me names buddy.

Congratulations .

 

Your first bairn .

And you still manage good intelligent posts.

Haha id better quit arguing with you.

[JamboX2]

Hilary Clinton.

Admits saudi arabia funds and supports isis.

Her top aide describes the sale of 60 billion dollars worth of arms to the same country as top priority.

While her foundation accepts 25 million dollars from the same country.

 

Is that fake news?

 

Genuine question .

 

Saudi Arabia that bastion of human rights.

We and half the EU sell them arms. We helped them onto the UN Human Rights Committee.

 

The western interest in Saudi Arabia boils down to two things:

 

1. Oil

2. A fear of what would replace the House of Saud.

 

However, you fail to differentiate between state and private money. Is this government cash or provate donation?

Edited January 7, 2017 by JamboX2

[jake]

We and half the EU sell them arms. We helped them onto the UN Human Rights Committee.

 

The western interest in Saudi Arabia boils down to two things:

 

1. Oil

2. A fear of what would replace the House of Saud.

 

However, you fail to differentiate between state and private money. Is this government cash or provate donation?

 

All of which you state is true.

As for state or private donation i dont know .

 

Jambo i dont say that trump is better or worse.

Id say they are all the same.

Obama the anti war president authorised in his last year alone 26 thousand bombings.

 

The rhetoric coming from the US in his last weeks as president is the kind we are being warned will happen under trump.

 

Dont you know the cia are briefing so it must be true.

 

Anyway UA has told me not one media source can be believed can you tell me any?

[jake]

Truth is jambox2 i think i know a lot but i know nothing.

And i could argue with myself at times.

 

I try to argue what is right versus wrong.

[jake]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN14Q1VC

 

Dont know if this is reliable news.

 

But if trump had ordered this there would be uproar.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

You haven't called me names buddy.

Congratulations .

 

Your first bairn .

And you still manage good intelligent posts.

Haha id better quit arguing with you.

 

Thanks mate. Got a lot of time sitting up with her on the laptop to rattle off nonsense.  JKB was made for times such as these.

[Unknown user]

Thanks mate. Got a lot of time sitting up with her on the laptop to rattle off nonsense. JKB was made for times such as these.

What IS the female equivalent of Rudi? Rudella?

Congrats

[Riddley Walker]

Thanks mate. Got a lot of time sitting up with her on the laptop to rattle off nonsense.  JKB was made for times such as these.

 

My JKB output increased massively in the early months of my daughter as well. I spent so much time sitting around knackered this place was a godsend. Congratulations UA.

[coconut doug]

We and half the EU sell them arms. We helped them onto the UN Human Rights Committee.

 

The western interest in Saudi Arabia boils down to two things:

 

1. Oil

2. A fear of what would replace the House of Saud.

 

However, you fail to differentiate between state and private money. Is this government cash or provate donation?

Why would you differentiate between state and private money where Saudi Arabia is concerned? They have no democratic ideals to infringe. I don't think they even have taxation.

 

What could be worse than the House of Saud? Is there anything on the planet as bad?

 

Western interest in Saudi Arabia is about maintaining these evil despots so that they can inflict as much harm as possible on the surrounding countries both in terms of war and terrorism but also by holding back human rights. We sell them huge amounts of arms and military training to enable them to do this as well as subjugate their own people. The scale and sustained nature of this oppression has been a major factor in Blair/Bush/Clinton governments, maybe it will change under Trump especially if the hangers on like the U.K. have to foot their own bills. Gaddafi made these points to the Arab League shortly before they destroyed him and his country.

 

Like Jake I would like to know which media sources we can trust and those we cant.

 

BTW Do you really believe that the Russians hacked Hillary's e-mails and that this impacted on the election?

[jake]

Why would you differentiate between state and private money where Saudi Arabia is concerned? They have no democratic ideals to infringe. I don't think they even have taxation.

 

What could be worse than the House of Saud? Is there anything on the planet as bad?

 

Western interest in Saudi Arabia is about maintaining these evil despots so that they can inflict as much harm as possible on the surrounding countries both in terms of war and terrorism but also by holding back human rights. We sell them huge amounts of arms and military training to enable them to do this as well as subjugate their own people. The scale and sustained nature of this oppression has been a major factor in Blair/Bush/Clinton governments, maybe it will change under Trump especially if the hangers on like the U.K. have to foot their own bills. Gaddafi made these points to the Arab League shortly before they destroyed him and his country.

 

Like Jake I would like to know which media sources we can trust and those we cant.

 

BTW Do you really believe that the Russians hacked Hillary's e-mails and that this impacted on the election?

 

Gaddafi wanted currency dictated by gold reserves.

He proposed that for Africa as a whole.

 

Guess what russian gold reserves are double the worth of their currency.

 

I would post links to the whole question of world currency and the control of monetary value but im unsure about the validity of the source.

 

Like i posted earlier the more i think i know the less im sure.

One thing i do know is that whats going on is only to protect those that have ahainst those that want.

 

And that its always those that have the least that pay the most.

[niblick1874]

So we have some screeming fake news at everything others say on here, however, when asked where they get their news from and why they believe they are not being taken in with fake news. Nothing.

 

Take two things we know of where the contents were factual and pivotal to the election and  lets see how they were reported on during the election and now. 

 

What is in the WikiLeaks and the TPP are factual and have been analyzed upside down and inside out because what is in them are massive game changers, We are not talking about what celebrity is not going to be at Trumps inauguration here.

 

A whole slew of the information outlets ether did not mention them at all, or if they did, the discussion was not about the contents. That whole slew of information outlets were, and are, the MSM.

 

So I can't answer your question as to who to believe Jake, but I can tell you who not to believe. The MSM.

 

This below is the scummy shite these people get up to that are telling us that it was the Russians that did it. Compelling and believable? Wrong. She is the daughter of the Kuwaiti  ambassador who was given instructions by a well known PR company so as to be convincing in every way. It's fake news. It is all a pack of lies. Who ran with it? The MSM.

 

While others saw right threw it, their voices were drowned out by people calling them scum for not caring about the babies. I remember being told that I was as bad as those taking the babies out of the incubators and throwing them on the floor.

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=lying+about+babies+being+thrown+out+of+incubaters&view=detail&mid=9E2213F764859617E3779E2213F764859617E377&FORM=VIRE

 

For anyone that doesn't quite get what this enabled, below is a two minute explanation and below that, 23 seconds that should make your blood run cold.

 

What is it they say about deflection and distraction when you are up to something and have been found out? Claim those that are pointing out to others what you are doing are doing what they are saying you are doing.

 

 

 

Tell me again how many babies died from being taken out of their incubators and thrown on the floor as apposed to how many died because of the sanctions.

 

I could fill page after page on here with the likes of what is above. 

[Ulysses]

[coconut doug]

So we have some screeming fake news at everything others say on here, however, when asked where they get their news from and why they believe they are not being taken in with fake news. Nothing.

 

Take two things we know of where the contents were factual and pivotal to the election and  lets see how they were reported on during the election and now. 

 

What is in the WikiLeaks and the TPP are factual and have been analyzed upside down and inside out because what is in them are massive game changers, We are not talking about what celebrity is not going to be at Trumps inauguration here.

 

A whole slew of the information outlets ether did not mention them at all, or if they did, the discussion was not about the contents. That whole slew of information outlets were, and are, the MSM.

 

So I can't answer your question as to who to believe Jake, but I can tell you who not to believe. The MSM.

 

This below is the scummy shite these people get up to that are telling us that it was the Russians that did it. Compelling and believable? Wrong. She is the daughter of the Kuwaiti  ambassador who was given instructions by a well known PR company so as to be convincing in every way. It's fake news. It is all a pack of lies. Who ran with it? The MSM.

 

While others saw right threw it, their voices were drowned out by people calling them scum for not caring about the babies. I remember being told that I was as bad as those taking the babies out of the incubators and throwing them on the floor.

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=lying+about+babies+being+thrown+out+of+incubaters&view=detail&mid=9E2213F764859617E3779E2213F764859617E377&FORM=VIRE

 

For anyone that doesn't quite get what this enabled, below is a two minute explanation and below that, 23 seconds that should make your blood run cold.

 

What is it they say about deflection and distraction when you are up to something and have been found out? Claim those that are pointing out to others what you are doing are doing what they are saying you are doing.

 

 

 

Tell me again how many babies died from being taken out of their incubators and thrown on the floor as apposed to how many died because of the sanctions.

 

I could fill page after page on here with the likes of what is above. 

Good post.

 

     Why do you think so many refuse to believe information critical of the west and readily believe the worst of others? The msm lies on Syria and Russian hacking are there for all to see but when posted on here there is rarely a coherent response. There's  hardly ever a discussion about the quality of evidence or the reasoning behind the statements made by the msm. Every night for weeks, on the BBC, we were told the Russians were targeting civilians in East Aleppo. Never any attempt to justify this claim and only once did I see any acknowledgement that the rest of the city was being randomly shelled by the terrorists in the East and never any discussion about where they were getting their weapons from.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Thanks to all of you for the kind words.  Didn't mean to turn this thread into my personal bairn announcement, but there you go.

 

Not to belabor the point, but this is from the Wall St. Journal.  Turns out Trump owes nearly $2 billion to 150 Wall St. firms.  But no worries, I'm sure he'll be tough on them.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-debts-are-widely-held-on-wall-street-creating-new-potential-conflicts-1483637414

[niblick1874]

Good post.

 

     Why do you think so many refuse to believe information critical of the west and readily believe the worst of others? The msm lies on Syria and Russian hacking are there for all to see but when posted on here there is rarely a coherent response. There's  hardly ever a discussion about the quality of evidence or the reasoning behind the statements made by the msm. Every night for weeks, on the BBC, we were told the Russians were targeting civilians in East Aleppo. Never any attempt to justify this claim and only once did I see any acknowledgement that the rest of the city was being randomly shelled by the terrorists in the East and never any discussion about where they were getting their weapons from.

Wait for this.

 

The Washington Post last week put out a fake story (headline shit) about how Russia had hacking into the American power grid (they didn't even call the electrical company). The next day they say that they were mistaken and, and , and, nothing.

 

Not long ago (two weeks?),the Obama bunch said that any attack on America such as this would result in military action with phrases being banded around such as, We need to take action, and we will. Now tell me again where this dangerous fake news is coming from? How ******* dangerous does it get? Some nut bar turns up with a gun at a pizza shop because he was a nut bar and figured the place was full of pedophiles then waltzed away by the cops to somewhere?  Which of those are getting the big licks from the MSM do you think? Taking into consideration what else is going on (poking the bear with a pointed stick) I say, let's talk about fake news.

 

I will post this again, Watch this X2 before you go on about the MSM and the changes that were put into place to allow them to become what they are.

 

http://putlockers.ch/watch-shadows-of-liberty-online-free-putlocker.html

 

 

As for the questions in your post, Kickback is not a reflection on what people are seeing out there, if it was, Clinton would have walked it. She didn't.

[jake]

So we have some screeming fake news at everything others say on here, however, when asked where they get their news from and why they believe they are not being taken in with fake news. Nothing.

 

Take two things we know of where the contents were factual and pivotal to the election and lets see how they were reported on during the election and now.

 

What is in the WikiLeaks and the TPP are factual and have been analyzed upside down and inside out because what is in them are massive game changers, We are not talking about what celebrity is not going to be at Trumps inauguration here.

 

A whole slew of the information outlets ether did not mention them at all, or if they did, the discussion was not about the contents. That whole slew of information outlets were, and are, the MSM.

 

So I can't answer your question as to who to believe Jake, but I can tell you who not to believe. The MSM.

 

This below is the scummy shite these people get up to that are telling us that it was the Russians that did it. Compelling and believable? Wrong. She is the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador who was given instructions by a well known PR company so as to be convincing in every way. It's fake news. It is all a pack of lies. Who ran with it? The MSM.

 

While others saw right threw it, their voices were drowned out by people calling them scum for not caring about the babies. I remember being told that I was as bad as those taking the babies out of the incubators and throwing them on the floor.

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=lying+about+babies+being+thrown+out+of+incubaters&view=detail&mid=9E2213F764859617E3779E2213F764859617E377&FORM=VIRE

 

For anyone that doesn't quite get what this enabled, below is a two minute explanation and below that, 23 seconds that should make your blood run cold.

 

What is it they say about deflection and distraction when you are up to something and have been found out? Claim those that are pointing out to others what you are doing are doing what they are saying you are doing.

 

 

 

Tell me again how many babies died from being taken out of their incubators and thrown on the floor as apposed to how many died because of the sanctions.

 

I could fill page after page on here with the likes of what is above.

 

You would have thought after the Iraq lies we would be more cynical.

Hillsborough.

The covering up by the establishment of saville .

Murdochs press.

Phone hacking etc etc.

 

Then when it seems like decent guys like corbyn we have our very own bbc deliberately setting out against him.

 

It does make you question the validity of any news.

 

I got an absolute roasting on here regarding 9/11.

 

Even though the laws of physics were on my side.

[jake]

Thanks to all of you for the kind words. Didn't mean to turn this thread into my personal bairn announcement, but there you go.

 

Not to belabor the point, but this is from the Wall St. Journal. Turns out Trump owes nearly $2 billion to 150 Wall St. firms. But no worries, I'm sure he'll be tough on them.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-debts-are-widely-held-on-wall-street-creating-new-potential-conflicts-1483637414

 

He will fit right in with the rest of the corruption.

Suppose all we can do buddy is try to bring our bairns up to be decent.

And try our best to protect them.

[niblick1874]

You would have thought after the Iraq lies we would be more cynical.

Hillsborough.

The covering up by the establishment of saville .

Murdochs press.

Phone hacking etc etc.

 

Then when it seems like decent guys like corbyn we have our very own bbc deliberately setting out against him.

 

It does make you question the validity of any news.

 

I got an absolute roasting on here regarding 9/11.

 

Even though the laws of physics were on my side.

Here's the weird bit, I am in alignment with UA's stance on policy but the way forward we have fought for, for so long, and so hard, has been hijacked by monsters. I can't see how he can't see that, therefor I don't trust him.

[coconut doug]

Wait for this.

 

The Washington Post last week put out a fake story (headline shit) about how Russia had hacking into the American power grid (they didn't even call the electrical company). The next day they say that they were mistaken and, and , and, nothing.

 

Not long ago (two weeks?),the Obama bunch said that any attack on America such as this would result in military action with phrases being banded around such as, We need to take action, and we will. Now tell me again where this dangerous fake news is coming from? How ******* dangerous does it get? Some nut bar turns up with a gun at a pizza shop because he was a nut bar and figured the place was full of pedophiles then waltzed away by the cops to somewhere?  Which of those are getting the big licks from the MSM do you think? Taking into consideration what else is going on (poking the bear with a pointed stick) I say, let's talk about fake news.

 

I will post this again, Watch this X2 before you go on about the MSM and the changes that were put into place to allow them to become what they are.

 

http://putlockers.ch/watch-shadows-of-liberty-online-free-putlocker.html

 

 

As for the questions in your post, Kickback is not a reflection on what people are seeing out there, if it was, Clinton would have walked it. She didn't.

I posted the link to the Washington Post story already and the retraction. There was no reaction from a poster who claimed the WP as a newspaper of record and afforded it substantial credibility. Obviously it is just another msm propaganda sheet and their story did not stand up to even mild scrutiny. My problem is that many choose to believe what they see and read because of where they saw it and ignore the detail, reasoning and lack of objectivity, facts and proper sources that characterise the fake news. You will remember we went to war with Iraq on a misunderstanding, a genuine mistake apparently. If you believe that then you will believe almost anything including Russia hacking Hillary's e-mails, the White Helmets, Sarin Gas attacks, deliberate targeting of civilians in Aleppo etc.

 

  In the same way as you describe, some of this nonsense almost drew us into a war with Syria (somebody on here thinks we are at war with Syria) unfortunately for our leaders the public were not convinced. It has to be that our leaders have another agenda or the public are just too gullible and believe all the fake news put out by alt media. My view is that the msm have been exposed far too obviously and frequently but why are so many of the JKB loyal still loyal to such an obviously discredited media and why are so few politicians prepared to speak up.

[aussieh]

Good post.

 

Why do you think so many refuse to believe information critical of the west and readily believe the worst of others? The msm lies on Syria and Russian hacking are there for all to see but when posted on here there is rarely a coherent response. There's hardly ever a discussion about the quality of evidence or the reasoning behind the statements made by the msm. Every night for weeks, on the BBC, we were told the Russians were targeting civilians in East Aleppo. Never any attempt to justify this claim and only once did I see any acknowledgement that the rest of the city was being randomly shelled by the terrorists in the East and never any discussion about where they were getting their weapons from.

There's a difference between Brit/US propaganda and out there nutville CT shite. I don't go for the anti Russia pish, but Michelle the Transgender assassin is utter drivelling bamstickary of the highest order. And well you know it.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

I posted the link to the Washington Post story already and the retraction. There was no reaction from a poster who claimed the WP as a newspaper of record and afforded it substantial credibility. Obviously it is just another msm propaganda sheet and their story did not stand up to even mild scrutiny. My problem is that many choose to believe what they see and read because of where they saw it and ignore the detail, reasoning and lack of objectivity, facts and proper sources that characterise the fake news. You will remember we went to war with Iraq on a misunderstanding, a genuine mistake apparently. If you believe that then you will believe almost anything including Russia hacking Hillary's e-mails, the White Helmets, Sarin Gas attacks, deliberate targeting of civilians in Aleppo etc.

 

  In the same way as you describe, some of this nonsense almost drew us into a war with Syria (somebody on here thinks we are at war with Syria) unfortunately for our leaders the public were not convinced. It has to be that our leaders have another agenda or the public are just too gullible and believe all the fake news put out by alt media. My view is that the msm have been exposed far too obviously and frequently but why are so many of the JKB loyal still loyal to such an obviously discredited media and why are so few politicians prepared to speak up.

 

What makes the WaPo a respectable paper is not that it never makes errors, but that it actually posted the retraction.  Newspapers make errors -- they are reporting news on a deadline.  As I said above (and I presume you are referring to me), no source is inherently trustworthy.  All news sources have bias.  The Post prides itself on being out in front of stories because of their staffing and position in Washington, and that means sometimes they jump the gun.

 

The evidence for Russia's meddling in the election is substantial and has been confirmed by every major intelligence agency in the US (agencies which are often at odds with each other) as well as probably the most respected high-level IT security firm in the US.  It is not particularly extraordinary news, nor particularly surprising.  The only reason there's even any controversy about it is that Trump thinks it makes him look bad so he's throwing a fit.

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

Meryl Streep made a good speech last night - instead of focusing on a couple of her very good points about disrespect causing more disrespect and violence causing violence and about bullying in general the Trump response (by twitter as usual) was the call her an over rated actress who was bitter about Hillary losing and that she was wrong, he didn't mock a disabled reporter.

 

Hillary lost, that's done.  The Trump will be president a week on Friday.  Yet all we see from the Trump is tweets attacking anyone that disagrees with him, whether this is by belittling them or trying to make out that the majority of the media are liars.  This isn't a point about which media source is trustworthy and which isn't.  It's a very serious point that the man that is about to assume the presidency resorts to name calling and bullying via social media whenever anyone is critical of him or his policies.  I'm delighted he's exercising his first amendment rights of free speech, i'm less delighted by the means he chooses to shout down others rights to free speech...

[Maple Leaf]

Meryl Streep made a good speech last night - instead of focusing on a couple of her very good points about disrespect causing more disrespect and violence causing violence and about bullying in general the Trump response (by twitter as usual) was the call her an over rated actress who was bitter about Hillary losing and that she was wrong, he didn't mock a disabled reporter.

 

Hillary lost, that's done.  The Trump will be president a week on Friday.  Yet all we see from the Trump is tweets attacking anyone that disagrees with him, whether this is by belittling them or trying to make out that the majority of the media are liars.  This isn't a point about which media source is trustworthy and which isn't.  It's a very serious point that the man that is about to assume the presidency resorts to name calling and bullying via social media whenever anyone is critical of him or his policies.  I'm delighted he's exercising his first amendment rights of free speech, i'm less delighted by the means he chooses to shout down others rights to free speech...

It's a truism that you have to have a thick skin to be in politics.

 

Trump is demonstrating that he has a very thin skin indeed.  He'd better learn to cope with criticism, otherwise the next 4 years will degenerate into a circus.

[jake]

What makes the WaPo a respectable paper is not that it never makes errors, but that it actually posted the retraction. Newspapers make errors -- they are reporting news on a deadline. As I said above (and I presume you are referring to me), no source is inherently trustworthy. All news sources have bias. The Post prides itself on being out in front of stories because of their staffing and position in Washington, and that means sometimes they jump the gun.

 

The evidence for Russia's meddling in the election is substantial and has been confirmed by every major intelligence agency in the US (agencies which are often at odds with each other) as well as probably the most respected high-level IT security firm in the US. It is not particularly extraordinary news, nor particularly surprising. The only reason there's even any controversy about it is that Trump thinks it makes him look bad so he's throwing a fit.

 

UA.

The last time i read thevsun there was always retractions.

Small page 5 shitty corner paragraphs.

 

Come on tae fek

[jake]

What makes the WaPo a respectable paper is not that it never makes errors, but that it actually posted the retraction. Newspapers make errors -- they are reporting news on a deadline. As I said above (and I presume you are referring to me), no source is inherently trustworthy. All news sources have bias. The Post prides itself on being out in front of stories because of their staffing and position in Washington, and that means sometimes they jump the gun.

 

The evidence for Russia's meddling in the election is substantial and has been confirmed by every major intelligence agency in the US (agencies which are often at odds with each other) as well as probably the most respected high-level IT security firm in the US. It is not particularly extraordinary news, nor particularly surprising. The only reason there's even any controversy about it is that Trump thinks it makes him look bad so he's throwing a fit.

 

Its so funny to see the left sticking up for the cia.

 

I mean really up is down and down is up .

[jake]

Meryl Streep made a good speech last night - instead of focusing on a couple of her very good points about disrespect causing more disrespect and violence causing violence and about bullying in general the Trump response (by twitter as usual) was the call her an over rated actress who was bitter about Hillary losing and that she was wrong, he didn't mock a disabled reporter.

 

Hillary lost, that's done. The Trump will be president a week on Friday. Yet all we see from the Trump is tweets attacking anyone that disagrees with him, whether this is by belittling them or trying to make out that the majority of the media are liars. This isn't a point about which media source is trustworthy and which isn't. It's a very serious point that the man that is about to assume the presidency resorts to name calling and bullying via social media whenever anyone is critical of him or his policies. I'm delighted he's exercising his first amendment rights of free speech, i'm less delighted by the means he chooses to shout down others rights to free speech...

 

Hahahahaja

 

 

Meryl Streep the new philosophy of modern times.

 

Tomorrows headline .

 

Simon Cowell proposes new policy for brexit.

 

Holy fek bring back save the whale and free school dinners.

 

 

No wonder american and british politics are for sale

[Unknown user]

Hahahahaja

 

 

Meryl Streep the new philosophy of modern times.

 

Tomorrows headline .

 

Simon Cowell proposes new policy for brexit.

 

Holy fek bring back save the whale and free school dinners.

 

 

No wonder american and british politics are for sale

The post wasn't about Streep's politics, but about Trump turning on those who disagree with personal barbs, negativity and bullying via social media.

[jake]

I know .

The point stands mate.

Its a fekin joke.

The joke is that its even reported.

But whats laughable is the importance a good actress is given by the president of the US.

Hensce my comment.

Also the fact that the msm actors and actresses seem to be some kind of force in politics only reaffirms my view the whole things a sham.

 

A sham for us i might add but for millions its broken bones dropped bombs torn flesh and feked up childhoods.

 

And thats under obamas presidency.

 

 

Its all so obvious but no news reports questioning his crimes.

[Unknown user]

I know .

The point stands mate.

Its a fekin joke.

The joke is that its even reported.

But whats laughable is the importance a good actress is given by the president of the US.

Hensce my comment.

Also the fact that the msm actors and actresses seem to be some kind of force in politics only reaffirms my view the whole things a sham.

 

A sham for us i might add but for millions its broken bones dropped bombs torn flesh and feked up childhoods.

 

And thats under obamas presidency.

 

 

Its all so obvious but no news reports questioning his crimes.

What point stands? Do you have reason to believe Streep isn't politically savvy enough to have an opinion?

 

And why, whenever Trump is criticised, do the same posters go "yeah, well, Clinton/Obama did xyz?"

 

At some point people are going to have to stop looking at what they think Clinton did, what she might have done, what Obama did etc, and face up to the thin skinned, loud mouthed bully on his way in to power.

 

There's no way to spin this so the Donald looks good.

[Space Mackerel]

Trumps son in law becomes a Special advisor? ****s sakes!

 

The US is worse than North Korea and Iran.

[The Real Maroonblood]

Trumps son in law becomes a Special advisor? ****s sakes!

The US is worse than North Korea and Iran.

What could possibly go wrong.

[Ulysses]

Thanks mate. Got a lot of time sitting up with her on the laptop to rattle off nonsense.  JKB was made for times such as these.

 

I almost missed this!

 

Sorry for the off-topic post, but congratulations and the best of luck. 

[JamboX2]

Trumps son in law becomes a Special advisor? ****s sakes!

 

The US is worse than North Korea and Iran.

Not surprised as he helped run his transition team as President-elect.

 

Nepotism alive and well with the Trumps. Kids take the business. Son-in-law becomes special adviser.

 

Albeit not uncommon. It's pretty narrow.

[Francis Albert]

Not surprised as he helped run his transition team as President-elect.

 

Nepotism alive and well with the Trumps. Kids take the business. Son-in-law becomes special adviser.

 

Albeit not uncommon. It's pretty narrow.

Whereas Hillary Clinton? Or George W Bush?

[Ulysses]

Whereas Hillary Clinton? Or George W Bush?

 

Whereas Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush what?  Did they appoint their offspring or other family members to key positions in their administrations or their offices?  That's not a "TA-DA" question, by the way; I don't think they did, but I'm not sure.

[Unknown user]

yeah, well, Clinton/Obama did xyz

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

Just a reminder that we are less than 2 weeks before he becomes president and we've yet to see a tax return, we're still waiting for him to divest himself of his business that could lead to dozens of conflicts of interests and we are still waiting for a press conference....

 

Lots of tweets though, lots and lots of tweets.

 

Just to be clear, this isn't a post about Hillary losing but about the suitability of the next president.

[aussieh]

It's a truism that you have to have a thick skin to be in politics.

 

Trump is demonstrating that he has a very thin skin indeed. He'd better learn to cope with criticism, otherwise the next 4 years will degenerate into a circus.

The 2nd amendment was made for the likes of Trump.

[JamboX2]

Whereas Hillary Clinton? Or George W Bush?

As I said, appointing relatives is hardly uncommon. I don't believe they did do that. JFK did with Bobby Kennedy. But either way, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Edited January 10, 2017 by JamboX2

[El Salvador]

Just a reminder that we are less than 2 weeks before he becomes president and we've yet to see a tax return, we're still waiting for him to divest himself of his business that could lead to dozens of conflicts of interests and we are still waiting for a press conference....

Lots of tweets though, lots and lots of tweets.

Just to be clear, this isn't a post about Hillary losing but about the suitability of the next president.

Who cares about a tax return? Trump will be a far better President than Obama - not that it will be difficult, Obama is one of the worst in history.

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

Who cares about a tax return? Trump will be a far better President than Obama - not that it will be difficult, Obama is one of the worst in history.

I'd love some of what you're smoking. Tell me how Obama is the worst in history and trump will be far better? Seriously, I would love to know your reasoning.

 

See, what I see in the past 8 years of living here is a healthy economy, low jobless total, people getting healthcare and many more things. None of which was the cause of anyone but obama. I'm not in the least bit saying he is the best president ever, but he's far from being the worst.

 

Oh, and I'd love to see the tax returns because it would be interesting to know how little he pays in tax, charity donations etc given his claims he's a multi billionaire who does a lot for charity. To put it in simple terms.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Craig Gordons Gloves

[Francis Albert]

Whereas Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush what?  Did they appoint their offspring or other family members to key positions in their administrations or their offices?  That's not a "TA-DA" question, by the way; I don't think they did, but I'm not sure.

I don't know either. I just think there is something iffy (or at the very least in a nation of 300m plus unimaginative) about the son or wife of an ex-President becoming (or nearly becoming) President. And unlikely that they would have done so on the back of their own abilities without the patronage of father and husband.

 

If you want something more specifically related to the topic,  "Whereas JFK?". And maybe "whereas Bill", who appointed Hillary to chair his task force on health care reform.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Francis Albert

[Jambo 4 Ever]

Who cares about a tax return? Trump will be a far better President than Obama - not that it will be difficult, Obama is one of the worst in history.

Why do you think he was one of the worst?

[Maple Leaf]

Who cares about a tax return? Trump will be a far better President than Obama - not that it will be difficult, Obama is one of the worst in history.

"One of the worst" is very vague.  He hasn't led the US into any disastrous wars.  He led the US out of one of the worst recessions in modern history.  His actions, much criticised at the time, saved the US auto industry.  Six million American jobs have been created in the last eight years.  Millions of Americans now have health care, thanks to him.

 

There are negatives to offset those stats, of course, and we can't overlook the fact that he had to deal with a hostile Congress.  Overall, my assessment is that he has been an average President.  But "one of the worst"?  Not a chance.

[El Salvador]

Why do you think he was one of the worst?

 

"One of the worst" is very vague.  He hasn't led the US into any disastrous wars.  He led the US out of one of the worst recessions in modern history.  His actions, much criticised at the time, saved the US auto industry.  Six million American jobs have been created in the last eight years.  Millions of Americans now have health care, thanks to him.

 

There are negatives to offset those stats, of course, and we can't overlook the fact that he had to deal with a hostile Congress.  Overall, my assessment is that he has been an average President.  But "one of the worst"?  Not a chance.

 

I'd love some of what you're smoking. Tell me how Obama is the worst in history and trump will be far better? Seriously, I would love to know your reasoning.

 

See, what I see in the past 8 years of living here is a healthy economy, low jobless total, people getting healthcare and many more things. None of which was the cause of anyone but obama. I'm not in the least bit saying he is the best president ever, but he's far from being the worst.

 

Oh, and I'd love to see the tax returns because it would be interesting to know how little he pays in tax, charity donations etc given his claims he's a multi billionaire who does a lot for charity. To put it in simple terms.

 

Ok, maybe not one of the worst, but he certainly is on the lower end of the scale. 

 

I don't class obamacare as anything but an absolute failure which will rightly been replaced - his flagship policy and its destined for the garbage - that speaks volumes to me. Both domestic and foreign policies have been failures in my eyes and the amount of scandals in his administration is a lengthy list.  And i don't agree with healthy economy and low unemployment - the US debt has rocketed under him and (i think) there is a record number of Americans not working.  There is no denying he gets a very easy ride from the media who refuse to question him.

 

Will Trump be better?!  Nobody knows yet, but i am far more optimistic that he will be and I'll proudly call him My President. 

[Maple Leaf]

Ok, maybe not one of the worst, but he certainly is on the lower end of the scale. 

 

I don't class obamacare as anything but an absolute failure which will rightly been replaced - his flagship policy and its destined for the garbage - that speaks volumes to me. Both domestic and foreign policies have been failures in my eyes and the amount of scandals in his administration is a lengthy list.  And i don't agree with healthy economy and low unemployment - the US debt has rocketed under him and (i think) there is a record number of Americans not working.  There is no denying he gets a very easy ride from the media who refuse to question him.

 

Will Trump be better?!  Nobody knows yet, but i am far more optimistic that he will be and I'll proudly call him My President. 

Fair enough.

 

The Republicans have had several administrations when they could have implemented a health care program, but always failed to do so.  Let's see what kind of replacement program they enact before we get too critical of Obamacare.  Trump has said that he will repeal Obamacare on the first day he's in office.  I'll bet he doesn't.

 

When Obama assumed office, the US unemployment rate was over 8%. Now it's under 5%.

 

I agree that the US national debt has soared under Obama, but it has increased significantly in each of the last five administrations, starting with Ronald Reagan, so it's not a new phenomenon.

 

Running the US government is not a one-man show, as well all know, so Congress can take it's fair share of the credit/blame for everything that has transpired in the last 8 years. 

[jake]

What point stands? Do you have reason to believe Streep isn't politically savvy enough to have an opinion?

 

And why, whenever Trump is criticised, do the same posters go "yeah, well, Clinton/Obama did xyz?"

 

At some point people are going to have to stop looking at what they think Clinton did, what she might have done, what Obama did etc, and face up to the thin skinned, loud mouthed bully on his way in to power.

 

There's no way to spin this so the Donald looks good.

 

Read my post again.

And yes it is important to look at what obama has actually done.

And clinton who has been involved with establishment politics.

 

Trumps interaction with an actress on twitter is laughable but then so is the whole charade of Americas politics.

 

It is always certain posters who want not to talk about obamas presidency.

The only president to be continually involved in military conflict or clintons vote rigging and her conflict of interest.

 

Trump may be as bad but hes no worse.

[Bindy Badgy]

There is no denying he gets a very easy ride from the media who refuse to question him.

 

Really?

 

There's a station that has dedicated their entire schedule to trying to undermine him.