Impressed by the Trump administration part II

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

These are two different things.  I don't know if Trump had any collusion with the Russians.  That is what Mueller is investigating.  As far as the Russians interfering, that is the findings of US intelligence agencies.  (https://www.businessinsider.com/senate-intelligence-committee-report-russia-election-interference-2018-7)

 

My criticism is Trump taking the word of a man like Putin over his own country's findings.  That is weak tit as it comes.  

 

And I also am curious how Trump employs a guy as his personal attorney, an executive at his company and a personal confidante if he is also "not a very smart person" and "weak".  What's that all about?

Mueller isnt investigating any collusion....after 2 years if he had anything on this there would be huge leaks on it and charges filed on people for collusion charges.  Mueller has nothing.  Russian interference in an election...please.  Every foreign government that means anything is trying to sway our elections with influence and money.  We are doing the same thing all over the world.  Everyone is throwing stones in their glass houses.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I like how you just skipped over the last part of my post, the whole Wikileaks, Guccifer Russian army part there. It wasn't just Facebook, but the hacking of the Podesta emails corrdiantion with Wikileaks. 

posted by fish82

This is all complete conjecture, FWIW. The fact is that we don't know what they did/didn't do in 2008/2012, because no one cared enough to look.

 

Well, yes and no. The Intel folks have stated numerous times the 2016 levels of Russian efforts were more than 2012 and 2008. You are correct in that we do not know everything that Mueller has right now, so that is conjecture at this point. 

posted by Spock

"Shit ton of stories...."  thats what you have.  Stories.  Creating online clickbait and fake accounts on social media isnt interfering with elections.  Hell our media lies to us daily about something political........is that interference?  Yes if you hold it to the same standards.

 

THanks for making my points.....no evidence linking Trump.

 

"A lot of smoke"....well in the case of Clinton and the dems there is a California size forest fire right in front of you and the dems and you cant see it when it comes to election interference and rigging elections.

 

I also liked how you skipped over the rest of it..."testimony, indictments, and intelligent assessments stating the Russians interfered with the election."

posted by CenterBHSFan

Well fuck. I shared a few memes during the fall of 2016. I had no idea that I was colluding with Russia!

I helped create the second coming of the Red Scare!!!

Commie!
 

 

I love how the left is quick to yell about "hacking emails" and breaking into servers as if this spy stuff isnt done by everyone all the time.  What I never hear is that all the emails and servers are full of illegal crap and they seem to forget that the real crimes are in the emails and not how the emails were found.  The left is quick to throw Wikileaks under the bus in regards to their legality of posting info.  THe NY times, WAPO and CNN do the exact same thing by taking leaks from DC and making news stories about them.  Would you like to explain the difference?

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I like how you just skipped over the last part of my post, the whole Wikileaks, Guccifer Russian army part there. It wasn't just Facebook, but the hacking of the Podesta emails corrdiantion with Wikileaks. 

Kind of similar to how you, among others, wring your hands over certain servers being hacked and by whom, and completely ignore the what, which was massive corruption on the part of Clinton and the DNC. Pot. Kettle. Black.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Kind of similar to how you, among others, wring your hands over certain servers being hacked and by whom, and completely ignore the what, which was massive corruption on the part of Clinton and the DNC. Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

Or the fact that massive amounts of people lie to congress and the feds yearly but only 6 people in the past 40 years have gone to jail for it.  Mueller trying to double that number for BS charges and perjury traps. Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Clinton(s), Holder, everyone in the IRS scandal adn many others all lied.  Are they going to jail????   Nothing to see here just move on.  

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/30/u-s-mexico-canada-leaders-sign-usmca-trade-pact-replacing-nafta/

In the meantime.......

posted by Spock

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/30/u-s-mexico-canada-leaders-sign-usmca-trade-pact-replacing-nafta/

 

 

In the meantime.......

In the meantime, you continue to give the appearance of using Breitbart as a primary news source.

posted by O-Trap

In the meantime, you continue to give the appearance of using Breitbart as a primary news source.

WTF does it matter where the news source is?  I read about 10 different sources a day....including the left wing media sites.  I take in all the slants and decide who is telling it straight up.  Since that link is from Breitbart are you implying that it is BS?

posted by Spock

WTF does it matter where the news source is?  I read about 10 different sources a day....including the left wing media sites.  I take in all the slants and decide who is telling it straight up.  Since that link is from Breitbart are you implying that it is BS?

You take in a swath of information and decided Breitbart had the best, most reliable delivery?



I am implying that Breitbart isn't a credible source.  I can ask a 6-year-old child and a chemist both how many electrons a hydrogen atom has, and they both might be right, but that doesn't mean one isn't more trustworthy on the topic than another.

 considering all the stores are now closed, is there anywhere else to buy besides amazon? 

posted by geeblock

 considering all the stores are now closed, is there anywhere else to buy besides amazon? 

Yeah, that is the main reason why people shop thru Amazon.

posted by geeblock

 considering all the stores are now closed, is there anywhere else to buy besides amazon? 

Trump increased internet commerce right after he lowered gas prices.  His next feat will be to leap tall buildings in a single bound.  

I mention Trump because the reason QO posts these snippets of economic news on here is to suggest they are a direct result of Trump's actions.  That is the economic worldview of a child.  

I know I do more shopping for stuff that isn't groceries/necessities via teh interwebz than actual stores. I always figured I did that because it's easier, more convenient, it saves time and effort and I don't have to be wearing pants. So it's good to find out that Trump deserves credit for my inherent laziness and dislike of shopping.

I mean, for real, if a blurb can't define how much shopping was done at retail outlets, as opposed to online, one can not determine whether increased shopping via one means is a sign of good economy or a sign of people preferring online shopping to in-store shopping. Get all the numbers and see how they relate to previous years or this blurb is even more worthless to reality than the usual ones QQ posts. As it stands, this is about as trustworthy as a dude jumping up and down, rubbing his own shit into his hair and screaming "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!!!" Which I guess I could also see QQ doing if that meant he could pin it on the Demmys.

posted by Spock

WTF does it matter where the news source is?  I read about 10 different sources a day....including the left wing media sites.  I take in all the slants and decide who is telling it straight up.  Since that link is from Breitbart are you implying that it is BS?

Breitbart is as viable for legit news as a site like The Root and its regular "WHITE PEOPLE ARE EVERYTHING THAT IS WRONG" rants, except it's designed for the bracket of right-wingers who are too stupid to get into logic and coherent thinking. But go on with it, since that does basically describe you, at least from how you post here -- I just find it amusing that a person who whines as much as you do about media bias regularly posts shit from a site with roughly as much bias as every mainstream outlet put together.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/npr-issues-correction-after-falsely-accusing-trump-jr-of-being-in-legal-jeopardy-for-lying-to-senate

There will be plenty of this in the future.....oh wait no they wont

At some point, I think media will have to do some research, verifying and fact-checking before publishing. All of them, nowdays, are in such a rush for their sensationalism and the need to be first with their clickbait. 

Speaking of news media: Did any of you hear that Fox news (the organization, not the various personalities) has stopped using Twitter? I just heard of it last night. Apparently when Twitter decided to leave up some nasty tweets from lefty activists that were particularly nasty going after Tucker Carlson, after antifa threatened him/his family, and Fox has been boycotting them for it.

But say that a man is a man and a woman is a woman and you get banned lol!

posted by CenterBHSFan

Speaking of news media: Did any of you hear that Fox news (the organization, not the various personalities) has stopped using Twitter? I just heard of it last night. Apparently when Twitter decided to leave up some nasty tweets from lefty activists that were particularly nasty going after Tucker Carlson, after antifa threatened him/his family, and Fox has been boycotting them for it.

But say that a man is a man and a woman is a woman and you get banned lol!

It's definitely getting interesting.  Even if Facebook/Google/etc officially aren't trying to censor conservative media and tilt things toward a left-wing agenda, there are A LOT of "true believers" working there who are literally crying about Trump the dictator and the like.  So they actually have to try to appease these people such that they don't sue for perceived "harassment", nor just quit.  These people actually seem to think it's a crime against humanity if you don't sensor people they disagree with.

Just read some of the articles [and comments!] on Lifehacker/Gizmodo when they get political.  It's all literally as bad as Breitbart.  It's alarming because Breitbart and the like has a small right-wing base, but the other is pervasive seeping into tech blogs and about everything else.

Was going to post an article in WAPO, of all places, that was a so-called pyschological study about how Trump appeals to insecure white men.  It was hard to believe WAPO, even in present form, would post such a garbage opinion piece, but the comments were just like reading Breitbart about the caravan.

Trump has allowed all these media to show their true colors, and they no longer attempt to mask their bias or hide their agenda.  And oddly enough it has probably boosted their ratings.  People do not like being told their view is wrong, and that goes for both sides.  I think what all these outlets have realized is that catering to half the "80%" that blindly votes R/D picks-up more people than you lose trying to be fair and objective.

posted by CenterBHSFan

At some point, I think media will have to do some research, verifying and fact-checking before publishing. All of them, nowdays, are in such a rush for their sensationalism and the need to be first with their clickbait. 

That a nice pipedream.  But ratings are what matter, and people practically "root" for their media like blind homers, just like they do for their political party.

The latest climate change news had me shaking my head.  The complete lack of common sense and healthy skepticism is mindboggling, and that's partly because there's been a big campaign to mock people as "anti-science" if they don't buy into the hysteria.  Yes, there is absolutely an increase in CO2 because of humans....and that has a direct and diminishing warming affect (current totaling around 0.5 degrees celsius).  I'm not sure all the fossil fuels in the ground could double, much less triple, CO2 levels from where we are now, which would cap warming at a total of about 2 degrees celsius.

So speaking of "science", this latest report (like most of them), contains a fantastical and statistically improbable warming scenario of 12+ degrees, which is what all the leftwing outlets seize on.  The reality is all their predictions and scenarios have been wrong because they continue to push CO2 as some magical catalyst to cause run-away warming.  CO2 can't do it by itself, and their theory about CO2 as a catalyst is not based off good science, or history for that matter.  And the planet has been at CO2 levels 5-10X where we are today and didn't burn up.  But, again, lack of skepticism.  What's made the global warming hysteria so popular is all these regressive agendas can get behind it - the greenies, anti-Big Oil, alt-fuels, pro-gubmit, the redistributionists, overpopulation/limited resources, etc...And while 99.9% of people know jack shit about global warming science, it's a big hammer the left swings to paint the right as anti-science dumb hicks.  Simply believing in global warming hysteria doesn't make one more or less "pro-science", it just makes one a sheep.  It's the new political wedge issue, because it will probably be 30 more years before people start to say "wait, the earth is actually only very slightly warmer than it was 50 years ago...and the seas have barely risen"

Twitter definitely does not ban the 2 political sides eaually. Farrakhan can spout anti Semitic things yet you can’t say a tranny with a dick is a man. Private company so they can do what they want, but it is clearly targeting conservatives. Jesse Kelly got suspended the other day for nothing and he’s pretty tame (and pretty funny).