Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The biased Media vs Trump!

12526272830

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Hmm.

    1. Where did you read in the 'liberal media' that all white Trump voters are racist and stupid? Walks and talks like a straw man argument.

    2. I note that you forgot to mention that Hillary nailed the Asian-American vote - the most highly educated group in the electorate.

    3. Hillary had a clear majority in college graduates.

    4. Objectively, the policy platforms can be judged on their credibility. Regardless of the party/candidate/ideology it's still entirely reasonable to state that buying into one of the platforms, over the other, is an act as dumb as a bag of rocks. Those who voted for Trump on the basis of his platform, as opposed to his party's ideology, or a greater dislike for the other candidate, are indeed duped by snake oil. The issue here isn't the ethnicity of the voters, it's the stupidity of voting for the platform.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I haven't seen a comment from the liberal media on the intellegence of minorities personally. I would imagine that minorities voting Democrat is Turkeys not voting for Christmas as opposed to anything else.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Anybody want Trump to win, simply to beat the haters, the biased tv show hosts in America trying to ruin his campaign, the biased news stations all against him!

    Fox news has trumps side, but not sure if any others do . Way too many people on the bandwagon.. Trump says a lot of things that are correct

    On a serious point, is there ANY non-biased media in the US? At least as regards TV? TV anchors seem to stake their reputations on espousing a particular point of view. It's what their audiences expect.

    The result is that America suffers from a cultural bipolar disorder. You can only be one or the other. Liberal or Conservative. Blue collar or Elite. Pro Gun (I can carry any firearm any where any time) or anti gun (take them all away no hunting no clay pigeon shooting no vermin control). Doesn't seem to make for any shade of grey at all.

    Former president Bill Clinton was on the Daily Show before the election and said that America is increasingly siloed, thanks no doubt to media "echo chambers" where people only listen to what they want to hear.

    In his day he said the country was split so that about 40 per cent each would always vote either Rep or Dem and the remaining 20 per cent was up for grabs at election time. Now, he said, the floating vote is down to 10 per cent.

    Whatever you think about Clinton, I think he's right on this point. And I don't think it's healthy for America. Or the rest of us.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Mr Joe


    On a serious point, is there ANY non-biased media in the US? At least as regards TV? TV anchors seem to stake their reputations on espousing a particular point of view. It's what their audiences expect.

    The result is that America suffers from a cultural bipolar disorder. You can only be one or the other. Liberal or Conservative. Blue collar or Elite. Pro Gun (I can carry any firearm any where any time) or anti gun (take them all away no hunting no clay pigeon shooting no vermin control). Doesn't seem to make for any shade of grey at all.

    Former president Bill Clinton was on the Daily Show before the election and said that America is increasingly siloed, thanks no doubt to media "echo chambers" where people only listen to what they want to hear.

    In his day he said the country was split so that about 40 per cent each would always vote either Rep or Dem and the remaining 20 per cent was up for grabs at election time. Now, he said, the floating vote is down to 10 per cent.

    Whatever you think about Clinton, I think he's right on this point. And I don't think it's healthy for America. Or the rest of us.

    The Liberals fully took over the the mainstream media and just use it as a vehicle for propaganda. Hell they even do it on Comedy Central, all of those Daily Show type guys and Amy Schumer types, were just churning out not so subtle hatred at conservatives and Trump. These people were actually in tears when Hillary lost....:pac:

    People don't trust the mainstream media anymore. I can't turn on RTE news or radio, without their extreme Liberal agenda being thrown in my face. They have zero balance, look at ther coverage of this election. I manage less than 2 minutes and turn off in disgust.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr Joe wrote: »
    The Liberals fully took over the the mainstream media and just use it as a vehicle for propaganda. Hell they even do it on Comedy Central, all of those Daily Show type guys and Amy Schumer types, were just churning out not so subtle hatred at conservatives and Trump. These people were actually in tears when Hillary lost....:pac:

    People don't trust the mainstream media anymore. I can't turn on RTE news or radio, without their extreme Liberal agenda being thrown in my face. They have zero balance, look at ther coverage of this election. I manage less than 2 minutes and turn off in disgust.

    That would mean you don't trust the mainstream media, not 'people'. Plenty of people watching RTE news without any disgust whatsoever.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Mr Joe wrote: »
    The Liberals fully took over the the mainstream media and just use it as a vehicle for propaganda. Hell they even do it on Comedy Central, all of those Daily Show type guys and Amy Schumer types, were just churning out not so subtle hatred at conservatives and Trump. These people were actually in tears when Hillary lost....:pac:

    People don't trust the mainstream media anymore. I can't turn on RTE news or radio, without their extreme Liberal agenda being thrown in my face. They have zero balance, look at ther coverage of this election. I manage less than 2 minutes and turn off in disgust.

    Who are "The Liberals"?
    Who are "The Mainstream Media"? Does that include Fox? Hannity? Starnes? Coulter etc?

    These are just labels you're throwing around. Arbitrary meaningless tags that mean whatever you want them to mean. Straw men whose arguments you can construct all by yourself and then demolish with all the skill that comes from knowing where the holes are because, after all, you put them there yourself? This is clever?

    This is an example of the Silos or Echo Chambers people talk about now, and they apply equally to Clinton as well as Trump supporters. It's a huge problem for America and indeed for the modern world.

    IF Donald Trump is the answer, it must have been a damn silly question.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Not for the first time you prove my point.

    You would think the media would be impartial, report the news and the facts.

    Give me an example of a TV station in the English speaking world that practices that to the exclusion of all commentary or analysis


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,243 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Mr Joe wrote: »
    The Liberals fully took over the the mainstream media and just use it as a vehicle for propaganda. Hell they even do it on Comedy Central, all of those Daily Show type guys and Amy Schumer types, were just churning out not so subtle hatred at conservatives and Trump. These people were actually in tears when Hillary lost....:pac:

    That's some victim fantasy you have there. There's no shortage of right wing media from Fox News and other Murdoch outlets to Breitbart. You also have the various tabloids such as the Daily Mail.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I don't believe Trump's white college-educated voters are stupid; I think they're cack-down-the-leg-of-their-trousers scared. As identified by the late Christopher Hitchens in the clip below. He wasn't always right, but occasionally he was on the money. Like here. And when talking about Ayn Rand :)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,116 ✭✭✭Trent Houseboat


    Trump: *Something racist*
    Media: "Trump: *Something racist*"
    Alt-Right: It's a jewish conspiracy
    Trump: It's a liberal conspiracy. You can't trust the media. ISIS Bigly. Emails.
    Average Person: I clearly can't trust mainstream media video of Trump saying something horrible in his own words, but I do trust the facebook story started by Macedonian teens about the Clinton body count.

    There's a quote from Justified that I'm going to paraphrase(butcher):
    If you run into a biased medium in the morning you ran into a biased medium.
    If you run into biased media all day, you're the one with biases.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Mr Joe


    alastair wrote: »
    That would mean you don't trust the mainstream media, not 'people'. Plenty of people watching RTE news without any disgust whatsoever.
    Yeah the same types who live in a bubble and are still in shock Trump got elected and Brexit passed.

    RTE and BBCs coverage went much like this:

    Presenter: Hillary Clinton is an amazing woman isn't she?

    Guest A: Oh yes she is an absolute inspiration to us all, especially women and minorities.

    Guest B: Yes she is an example to us all. I tell my children she is someone to look up to!

    Presenter: And what about that Trump guy, total racist idiot isn't he?

    Guest A: An absolute vile hateful misogynist sexist homophobic racist bigot.

    Guest B: Yes total scumbag and his supporters are even worse. I don't think these idiots have any education.

    Presenter: Of course they don't, his supporters are just dumb rednecks!

    Guest A: Hahaha yes they are, can't wait until these racist losers are put in their place.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr Joe wrote: »
    Yeah the same types who live in a bubble and are still in shock Trump got elected and Brexit passed.

    RTE and BBCs coverage went much like this:

    Presenter: Hillary Clinton is an amazing woman isn't she?

    Guest A: Oh yes she is an absolute inspiration to us all, especially women and minorities.

    Guest B: Yes she is an example to us all. I tell my children she is someone to look up to!

    Presenter: And what about that Trump guy, total racist idiot isn't he?

    Guest A: An absolute vile hateful misogynist sexist homophobic racist bigot.

    Guest B: Yes total scumbag and his supporters are even worse. I don't think these idiots have any education.

    Presenter: Of course they don't, his supporters are just dumb rednecks!

    Guest A: Hahaha yes they are, can't wait until these racist losers are put in their place.

    Your personal creative writing isn't really convincing on any front. Sorry.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Mr Joe


    alastair wrote: »
    Your personal creative writing isn't really convincing on any front. Sorry.
    Sadly I don't need to be too creative. It's going out on the airwaves daily. But since you agree with it you are happy enough for only your side of the fence to get a hearing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr Joe wrote: »
    Sadly I don't need to be too creative. It's going out on the airwaves daily. But since you agree with it you are happy enough for only your side of the fence to get a hearing.

    Trump got his hearing and what you mistake for 'bias' is the expected and rational reaction to what he had to say. Nothing strange in that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    Mr Joe wrote: »
    Sadly I don't need to be too creative. It's going out on the airwaves daily. But since you agree with it you are happy enough for only your side of the fence to get a hearing.

    Let's just be clear. Do you actually admire Trump, (and if so why?) or do you just take delight in antagonising people who don't?

    Seriously. Is "I don't like CNN New Anchors" your criterion for choosing a candidate by opting for the one you think they like the least?

    And is that a good policy? Just asking.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,243 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Posts deleted. No more link dumping and sniping please.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Sorry did not mean to suggest you were. Race is a better predictor. That is why they divide up groups by ethnicity and only divide whites up by college education.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    alastair wrote: »
    Eh no - it's you who referenced "the evidence that more college educated white males voted for Trump".

    Eh, I did not initally reference it at all, you are very confused or confusing me with a different poster. Re-read the thread again.

    alastair wrote: »
    Trump - the peace candidate that advocated for torture, the murder of families, of 'bombing the **** out of them', and 'taking their oil'? Best of luck with that pitch to the Nobel Institute. :rolleyes:

    You can roll your eyes all you want but I find it fascinating that here we have a Republican president elect who wants closer relations to Russia, less interventionist policies in the Middle East and wants to pursue an isolationist agenda, FDR style pre Pearl Harbour, yet still people are not happy. This is the lefts dream 101. How often have we had the argument that the US should stop interfering international in the affairs of other states by the likes of the left. Now we have this rhetoric by Trump but its ignored because he belongs to the wrong party.

    If this was a Democrat the usual regressive left would be creaming themselves and he would have gotten a Nobel Peace prize before inauguration ala Obama.

    Tell me, how is the Middle East now after 8 years of Obama? Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya. All peaceful and democratic I suppose. Never mind his unilateral indiscriminate use of drone strikes. Obama has authorised 10 times, yes 10 TIMES the amount of Drones strikes than Bush did.

    Hillary 'I voted to invade Iraq' Clinton would have been even more hawkish than 'do nothing and watch the Middle East burn' Obama.

    So, yes I stand by my assertion that Trump is the peace candidate here out of the two.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,788 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Well having read how minor incidents in war away places can escalate out of all proportion (currently reading a few books on the origins of WWI) then any one like Trump is at least attempting to deescalate the tensions with Russia. He (for the moment) is not seeking to impose lines in the sand (such as unilaterally imposed no fly zones) which would the Russians are under no obligation to observed. Then at least in that respect, Trump was the better peace candidate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Remember how important Clinton's email server was and it was totally illegal and treasonous to potentially transmit classified material over unsecured networks?

    Trump is reportedly having freeform, unplanned 'chats' with a wide variety of world leaders with no guidance from the State Department and over unsecured phonelines. Trump has already received secuity briefings so is privy to classified information which would likely relate to international relations - matters likely to come up in such nice friendly chats.

    LOCK HIM UP!

    http://www.salon.com/2016/11/17/australias-prime-minister-could-only-reach-donald-trump-by-getting-his-unsecured-cell-phone-number-from-a-golfing-buddy/


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    This fact is 'conveniently' forgotten by the press. The about face on this matter is actually galling. If Trump was going on about no fly zones in Syria you can imagine the howls and shrieks of protest from the usual professional protestors and the establishment mainstream media.

    Saint Hillary on the other hand can do no wrong,
    No fly zones? Not a bother, fixing the DNC nomination? Water under the bridge. Missing classified emails? Where is my flat white and Gluten Free muffin.
    Trump said something mean... 'Release the hounds of war'


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Remember how important Clinton's email server was and it was totally illegal and treasonous to potentially transmit classified material over unsecured networks?

    Trump is reportedly having freeform, unplanned 'chats' with a wide variety of world leaders with no guidance from the State Department and over unsecured phonelines. Trump has already received secuity briefings so is privy to classified information which would likely relate to international relations - matters likely to come up in such nice friendly chats.

    LOCK HIM UP!

    http://www.salon.com/2016/11/17/australias-prime-minister-could-only-reach-donald-trump-by-getting-his-unsecured-cell-phone-number-from-a-golfing-buddy/

    More tosh. The article in question does not mention the State Department so you are putting your own opinion into another opinion piece. Can we call this an opinion piece sandwich, which masquerades as 'news'?

    Trump is not yet president, so has no actual powers of state yet, that remains with Obama.

    Lastly, there is no evidence or proof that Trump and Turnbull talked about anything classified. Like Trump talked to Enda Kenny last week, what the hell would they have talked about that would be Top Secret, in that context. It would have the usual formalities of congratulations on the election result, hope we can work together, please visit us soon, I look forward to building a good relationship,etc, etc etc.. I really doubt they would have been formulating a devious plan to thwart Iran or China.

    We had this talk as well with Obama 8 years ago. People just gave out about literally everything. He could not tie his shoelaces right, or put his jacket on correctly. Most of these were cranks. I see the cranks are coming out of the wood work again in relation to Trump. I never knew there were so many though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Eh, I did not initally reference it at all, you are very confused or confusing me with a different poster. Re-read the thread again.
    Eh, I never said you 'initially' referenced it, I said you referenced it, as you did. Perhaps it's you who needs to revisit three thread?


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    You can roll your eyes all you want but I find it fascinating that here we have a Republican president elect who wants closer relations to Russia, less interventionist policies in the Middle East and wants to pursue an isolationist agenda, FDR style pre Pearl Harbour, yet still people are not happy. This is the lefts dream 101. How often have we had the argument that the US should stop interfering international in the affairs of other states by the likes of the left. Now we have this rhetoric by Trump but its ignored because he belongs to the wrong party.

    If this was a Democrat the usual regressive left would be creaming themselves and he would have gotten a Nobel Peace prize before inauguration ala Obama.

    Tell me, how is the Middle East now after 8 years of Obama? Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya. All peaceful and democratic I suppose. Never mind his unilateral indiscriminate use of drone strikes. Obama has authorised 10 times, yes 10 TIMES the amount of Drones strikes than Bush did.

    Hillary 'I voted to invade Iraq' Clinton would have been even more hawkish than 'do nothing and watch the Middle East burn' Obama.

    So, yes I stand by my assertion that Trump is the peace candidate here out of the two.
    Of course you're quite entitled to hold any opinion, even if it's at odds with the facts. But you're not going to spin your way out of the reality that this is a candidate that articulated positions that would have any objective observer running for The Hague. Not any sort of peacemaking going to come from that platform, and I'm pretty sure FDR would roll in his grave if he was being equated with that kind of idiocy. And what are 'unilateral' drone strikes supposed to be?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    alastair wrote: »
    Eh, I never said you 'initially' referenced it, I said you referenced it, as you did. Perhaps it's you who needs to revisit three thread?

    This is tedious. I reference it after your good self referenced it. Yes, this is tedious...
    alastair wrote: »
    Of course you're quite entitled to hold any opinion, even if it's at odds with the facts. But you're not going to spin your way out of the reality that this is a candidate that articulated positions that would have any objective observer running for The Hague. Not any sort of peacemaking going to come from that platform, and I'm pretty sure FDR would roll in his grave if he was being equated with that kind of idiocy. And what are 'unilateral' drone strikes supposed to be?

    The same FDR that interned the Japanese for WWII? Oh, there are many skeletons in that closet. Do you want me to talk about FDR's view on race? Go on, I dare you....

    The facts are laid out. Hillary wants the US to impose itself on the Middle East, something the regressive left have for years been railing again.
    Trump wants to form a more isolationist stance, in direct contravention against the neo-cons, who the left hate.... yet here Trump is the warmonger. Tell me what 'facts' I am missing here.



    Anti-war + stimulus spending = should be the lefts wet dream.
    if the exact same words were said by someone else, they would be applauded by yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    This is tedious. I reference it after your good self referenced it. Yes, this is tedious...
    What's tedious is your repeated attempts to wriggle out of the undermined claim you made. Permabear initially made the claim on the majority of white male graduates (you thanked the post). I pointed out that no majority voted for anyone. You then (here) re-asserted this claim, and then I pointed out that the same data had a majority of graduate voters opting for Hillary. So no, it's your reference. You'll have to own it, however tedious you find that.


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    The same FDR that interned the Japanese for WWII? Oh, there are many skeletons in that closet. Do you want me to talk about FDR's view on race? Go on, I dare you....

    The facts are laid out. Hillary wants the US to impose itself on the Middle East, something the regressive left have for years been railing again.
    Trump wants to form a more isolationist stance, in direct contravention against the neo-cons, who the left hate.... yet here Trump is the warmonger. Tell me what 'facts' I am missing here.



    Anti-war + stimulus spending = should be the lefts wet dream.
    if the exact same words were said by someone else, they would be applauded by yourself.
    The facts your missing are the facts you're choosing to ignore - Trump advocating for torture, the murder of families of combatants, "bombing the **** out of them" and "taking their oil". Sounds pretty 'interventionist' to me. You're defending the indefensible.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/lets-stop-calling-donald-trump-a-noninterventionist.html

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421825/donald-trump-foreign-policy-middle-east-oil


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    alastair wrote: »
    What's tedious is your repeated attempts to wriggle out of the undermined claim you made. Permabear initially made the claim on the majority of white male graduates (you thanked the post). I pointed out that no majority voted for anyone. You then (here) re-asserted this claim, and then I pointed out that the same data had a majority of graduate voters opting for Hillary. So no, it's your reference. You'll have to own it, however tedious you find that.

    Yes, tedious alright. Again, never made the initial claim. You love being tedious about an exit poll that in all actuality is wrong given the election result. I can understand in some way why you persist to bang on about it, as to be honest its the only thing you can claw onto. Such is the empty hole in your general argument. Hence why this is about the 10th post in a row where you go on about it. Its all you got..

    alastair wrote: »

    The facts your missing are the facts you're choosing to ignore - Trump advocating for torture, the murder of families of combatants, "bombing the **** out of them" and "taking their oil". Sounds pretty 'interventionist' to me. You're defending the indefensible.

    Great cliche at the end of that. Defending the indefensible. Which would be true, if I actually defended those actual remarks, which I didn't but you know that again, its the only thing you got. See, the problem we see at the moment are people from the left and establishemnt take Trump literally, but not seriously. While now more people are starting to realise that you don't take him literally but have to take him seriously.

    I also find it fascinating that you have not defended Hillary 'I voted for war in Iraq' Clinton. Again, shows that you can't even bring yourself to mention her and her hawkish rhetoric that is more like the Bush neo-cons. Funny that. Hey, lets talk about Trump instead and forget her sabre rattling with Russians.

    Also, noticed you ran away from discussing FDR. Thought as much.

    So, whats the next line of argument, repeat a third time the same empty boring claim or are we going to bring up the locker room comments. Its going to be a loooonnng 4 years for you guys. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Yes, tedious alright. Again, never made the initial claim. You love being tedious about an exit poll that in all actuality is wrong given the election result. I can understand in some way why you persist to bang on about it, as to be honest its the only thing you can claw onto. Such is the empty hole in your general argument. Hence why this is about the 10th post in a row where you go on about it. Its all you got..

    Once again - never said it was 'initially' your claim. In fact I was very clear it wasn't, last time you tried this distraction. But you seemingly can't take ownership of your own posts. Keep dissembling.
    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Great cliche at the end of that. Defending the indefensible. Which would be true, if I actually defended those actual remarks, which I didn't but you know that again, its the only thing you got. See, the problem we see at the moment are people from the left and establishemnt take Trump literally, but not seriously. While now more people are starting to realise that you don't take him literally but have to take him seriously.

    I also find it fascinating that you have not defended Hillary 'I voted for war in Iraq' Clinton. Again, shows that you can't even bring yourself to mention her and her hawkish rhetoric that is more like the Bush neo-cons. Funny that. Hey, lets talk about Trump instead and forget her sabre rattling with Russians.

    Also, noticed you ran away from discussing FDR. Thought as much.

    So, whats the next line of argument, repeat a third time the same empty boring claim or are we going to bring up the locker room comments. Its going to be a loooonnng 4 years for you guys. :)
    Nah, you didn't defend the quotes, but instead ignored them, because they rather undermine this silly notion of Trump as some banner of non-intervention. Trump is the indefensible here, not just those quotes. No interest in getting distracted by FDR, cheers, Trump is no FDR, you can run along with that guff.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    alastair wrote: »
    Once again - never said it was 'initially' your claim. In fact I was very clear it wasn't, last time you tried this distraction. But you seemingly can't take ownership of your own posts. Keep dissembling.

    This would be about the 11th time. Getting tedious yet?
    alastair wrote: »
    Nah, you didn't defend the quotes, but instead ignored them, because they rather undermine this silly notion of Trump as some banner of non-intervention. Trump is the indefensible here, not just those quotes. No interest in getting distracted by FDR, cheers, Trump is no FDR, you can run along with that guff.

    As I said, I do not take him literally. If you take everything every politician says literally in a campaign than more fool you.

    E.g. How is Guantanamo Bay doing lately?

    Trump is without question the peace candidate here out of the two. The American people are tried of being used by the rest of the western world as their police man. It is no wonder Merkel looked so glum last week, she is going to have to actually fund her army properly and not rely on the american tax payer to protect them in future.

    Its OK to run away from FDR, as its a wise decision on your part :)
    Its also wise to yet again ignore Hilary 'I voted for war with Iraq' Clinton. Disappointing but wise.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    This would be about the 11th time. Getting tedious yet?
    Ready to admit that it's you who referenced the cherry-picked claim yet?

    FA Hayek wrote: »
    As I said, I do not take him literally. If you take everything every politician says literally in a campaign than more fool you.

    E.g. How is Guantanamo Bay doing lately?

    Trump is without question the peace candidate here out of the two. The American people are tried of being used by the rest of the western world as their police man. It is no wonder Merkel looked so glum last week, she is going to have to actually fund her army properly and not rely on the american tax payer to protect them in future.

    Its OK to run away from FDR, as its a wise decision on your part :)
    Its also wise to yet again ignore Hilary 'I voted for war with Iraq' Clinton. Disappointing but wise.
    I thought he wasn't a politician? I certainly take his pronouncements as serious statements, and if he's contradictory at the same time, I factor that into how credible he is on all fronts. He's a loose cannon, and has made statements that undermine any possibility of his being taken seriously as a, ahem, 'peace candidate'. The American people voted for the other candidate in greater numbers. Maybe you should keep that in mind, when you go making assumptions on their part?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    I also find it fascinating that you have not defended Hillary 'I voted for war in Iraq' Clinton.

    Did she win the election when we weren't looking?

    Two points of fact: nobody defended her during the election, therefore she lost; having lost the election, we stand at a pivot where it is completely reasonable to be critical of the President Elect.

    If your card to play is "But Hillary," at this point, well..
    E.g. How is Guantanamo Bay doing lately?
    The prison camp that the president wanted gone, spent 8 years trying to get it gone, and the congress fought him every inch of the way and ultimately won that fight? We know how it went. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
    Trump is without question the peace candidate here out of the two.
    There is no longer any merit in comparing him to Hillary Clinton. On his own, the President Elect is no peace candidate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Overheal wrote: »
    On his own, the President Elect is no peace candidate.
    Sure he is. In just over a week since winning the election Donald Trump has done more for peace and security than eight years of Barack Obama. And Obama got a Nobel Piece Prize for what, exactly? Since Trump got elected Canada’s prime minister said he’s willing to renegotiate NAFTA. Mexico’s president Enrique Pena Nieto expressed a willingness to negotiate with The Donald. Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe is coming for a meeting with Trump and will most probably search for common ground on security as the Trans-Pacific Partnership is now dead. And with Russia, Putin respects strength and is willing to explore common interests with Moscow. Don’t you think Trump already deserves a Nobel Peace Prize?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Amerika wrote: »
    .And with Russia, Putin respects strength and is willing to explore common interests with Moscow.

    How, precisely, do you believe Trump has demonstrated strength to Putin? The man hasn't had the backbone to stick to any single policy line in his campaigning, and his position regarding Putin seems to consist primarily of kowtowing. I'm curious as to what manner of delusion reads any of that as 'strength'?

    I don't see any Nobel nominations in Trump's future.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Amerika wrote: »
    Sure he is. In just over a week since winning the election Donald Trump has done more for peace and security than eight years of Barack Obama. And Obama got a Nobel Piece Prize for what, exactly? Since Trump got elected Canada’s prime minister said he’s willing to renegotiate NAFTA. Mexico’s president Enrique Pena Nieto expressed a willingness to negotiate with The Donald. Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe is coming for a meeting with Trump and will most probably search for common ground on security as the Trans-Pacific Partnership is now dead. And with Russia, Putin respects strength and is willing to explore common interests with Moscow. Don’t you think Trump already deserves a Nobel Peace Prize?

    For wanting to expand torture, targeting civilians and carpet bombing foreign countries? Think not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Overheal wrote: »
    For wanting to expand torture, targeting civilians and carpet bombing foreign countries? Think not.

    Back by popular demand. Governing is different to campaigning so we will see what he will actually do. I'd say a fair few people want go after those Jihadists and Drug Cartels also in Mexico.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Back by popular demand.

    On what measure? Trump lags behind his opposition, so it certainly isn't expressed in his mandate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    I predict that within 6 months of Trump taking office, the Syrian civil war will be over, EU sanctions against Russia will be lifted and new EU/Russia cooperation and trade deals will be signed, Islamic State will be gone, the Mexican cartels will be cannibalising each other, Julian Assange will be out enjoying the sunshine, a good proportion of US troops will be home with their families, and The Donald will be getting on well with everybody that matters.
    Freedom and Peace. No prizes, but this time in a more meaningful way :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    alastair wrote: »
    On what measure? Trump lags behind his opposition, so it certainly isn't expressed in his mandate.

    Trump won the battleground states and took areas that were Obama and Sanders supporting Democratic regions of the country. He got his message out there to the country and the voters rewarded him in the ballot box. While he was traversing the country the numbers at the rallies are impressive. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/numbers-trump-averages-6400-campaign-events-hillary-averages-400-including-paid-staffers/

    It tells an alarming picture and taking off my Trump goggles it points to an electorate deeply unhappy with Washington decision making and a desire to shake up the place. A zero tolerance approach to dealing with International terrorism is favoured amongst huge numbers of Americans.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    According to Argentinian reporters, Trump used his congrats call from the Argentinian president to ask him get a building permit for him in Buenos Aires.
    Over the weekend, there were a flurry of stories about how Donald Trump and his family are already using the presidency to leverage his overseas businesses as well as his new DC hotel. Well, now there's more. This time in Argentina.

    Here's the background.

    For a number of years, Trump and his Argentine partners have been trying to build a major office building in Buenos Aires. The project has been held up by a series of complications tied to financing, importation of building materials and various permitting requirements.

    According to a report out of Argentina, when Argentine President Mauricio Macri called President-Elect Trump to congratulate him on his election, Trump asked Macri to deal with the permitting issues that are currently holding up the project.

    This comes from one of Argentina's most prominent journalists, Jorge Lanata, in a recent TV appearance. Lanata is quoted here in La Nacion, one of Argentina's most prestigious dailies. Said Lanata: “Macri called him. This still hasn’t emerged but Trump asked for them to authorize a building he’s constructing in Buenos Aires, it wasn’t just a geopolitical chat."

    Not even President yet and already abusing the office for personal gain.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/cashing-in-bigly-in-argentina

    http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1958082-revelan-que-trump-le-pidio-permiso-a-macri-para-hacer-una-torre


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Overheal wrote: »
    Did she win the election when we weren't looking?

    Two points of fact: nobody defended her during the election, therefore she lost; having lost the election, we stand at a pivot where it is completely reasonable to be critical of the President Elect.

    If your card to play is "But Hillary," at this point, well..

    Fair enough, but if you play that card, the you also have to give Trump a chance and the benefit of the doubt. He has not even been inaugurated yet and people have written him off. Cant have your cake and eat it.
    Overheal wrote: »
    The prison camp that the president wanted gone, spent 8 years trying to get it gone, and the congress fought him every inch of the way and ultimately won that fight? We know how it went. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

    You mean politicians break campaign promises? :eek::eek:
    Stop the press.
    Overheal wrote: »
    There is no longer any merit in comparing him to Hillary Clinton. On his own, the President Elect is no peace candidate.
    That is why I said he was the peace 'candidate'. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Amerika wrote: »
    Sure he is. In just over a week since winning the election Donald Trump has done more for peace and security than eight years of Barack Obama. And Obama got a Nobel Piece Prize for what, exactly? Since Trump got elected Canada’s prime minister said he’s willing to renegotiate NAFTA. Mexico’s president Enrique Pena Nieto expressed a willingness to negotiate with The Donald. Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe is coming for a meeting with Trump and will most probably search for common ground on security as the Trans-Pacific Partnership is now dead. And with Russia, Putin respects strength and is willing to explore common interests with Moscow. Don’t you think Trump already deserves a Nobel Peace Prize?

    This always puzzled me. Obama got the Nobel peace prize for giving nice campaign speeches and doing nothing in regards foreign policy. It really damaged the institution in my opinion.

    Reagan signed multiple Nuclear non-proliferation treaties with the USSR. Bill Clinton came within inches of achieving a historic Israel-Palestine deal. FDR stood up for western democracy in the face of authoritarianism.
    They all ended up empty handed, yet Obama got one after a few months of taking office where he achieve nothing of note. Bizarre virtue singling in my opinion.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,839 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    He has not even been inaugurated yet and people have written him off.

    The level of corruption and nepotism he's displaying before he's even sworn in negates any suggestion that he should be given any benefit of the doubt. It's actually quite breathtaking just how blatant he's being.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    There's a difference between given him a chance and giving him an inch


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Fair enough, but if you play that card, the you also have to give Trump a chance and the benefit of the doubt. He has not even been inaugurated yet and people have written him off.

    "Have to" give him a chance?

    No.

    I believe the first protests are scheduled for the day after the inauguration. The same thing happened with George w bush. You lose the popular vote and you'll never be allowed to forget it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Trump won the battleground states and took areas that were Obama and Sanders supporting Democratic regions of the country. He got his message out there to the country and the voters rewarded him in the ballot box. While he was traversing the country the numbers at the rallies are impressive. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/numbers-trump-averages-6400-campaign-events-hillary-averages-400-including-paid-staffers/

    It tells an alarming picture and taking off my Trump goggles it points to an electorate deeply unhappy with Washington decision making and a desire to shake up the place. A zero tolerance approach to dealing with International terrorism is favoured amongst huge numbers of Americans.

    You do get that he got fewer votes than his opponent?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Mr Joe


    alastair wrote: »
    You do get that he got fewer votes than his opponent?
    You going to keep repeating this for 4 years then? You lost, you were proven wrong. It's time to accept it and move on. That is the democratic process, which you only complain about after the fact. You probably want a re run of Brexit too until it goes your way? I'm afraid that isn't how it works, these are democracies not communist dictatorships as much as you would love that. Crying about it endlessly is pointless and won't change it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr Joe wrote: »
    You going to keep repeating this for 4 years then? You lost, you were proven wrong. It's time to accept it and move on. That is the democratic process, which you only complain about after the fact. You probably want a re run of Brexit too until it goes your way? I'm afraid that isn't how it works, these are democracies not communist dictatorships as much as you would love that. Crying about it endlessly is pointless and won't change it.

    Congrats on missing the point completely. Clearly Trump won the election. Well spotted. But he didn't convince a majority of voters that his platform was the way to go - which was the claim being made.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    alastair wrote: »
    How, precisely, do you believe Trump has demonstrated strength to Putin? The man hasn't had the backbone to stick to any single policy line in his campaigning, and his position regarding Putin seems to consist primarily of kowtowing. I'm curious as to what manner of delusion reads any of that as 'strength'?

    I don't see any Nobel nominations in Trump's future.
    A couple of quotes from Trump. The fact that Putin is willing to explore common interests with Moscow shows he looks at Trump as someone who will deal from the position of strength, IMO.

    “The Russians and Chinese have rapidly expanded their military capability, but look what’s happened to us!”

    “What has happened to us,” said Trump, is that “our nuclear weapons arsenal – our ultimate deterrent, has been allowed to atrophy,” along with sharp reductions in the size of our active duty armed forces, Navy, and Air Force.

    “Pilots are flying B-52s in combat missions today which are older than most people in this room,” Trump said to his audience from the Center for the National Interest. “Our military is depleted, and we’re asking our generals and military leaders to worry about global warming.”

    And you're correct in that Trump will never get the Nobel Piece Prize, no matter what. The Nobel Piece Prize has become a worthless and meaningless joke where merit (or lack thereof) is simply determined from the idealistic views of a few leftist individuals.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Amerika wrote: »
    A couple of quotes from Trump. The fact that Putin is willing to explore common interests with Moscow shows he looks at Trump as someone who will deal from the position of strength, IMO.

    “The Russians and Chinese have rapidly expanded their military capability, but look what’s happened to us!”

    “What has happened to us,” said Trump, is that “our nuclear weapons arsenal – our ultimate deterrent, has been allowed to atrophy,” along with sharp reductions in the size of our active duty armed forces, Navy, and Air Force.

    “Pilots are flying B-52s in combat missions today which are older than most people in this room,” Trump said to his audience from the Center for the National Interest. “Our military is depleted, and we’re asking our generals and military leaders to worry about global warming.”

    And you're correct in that Trump will never get the Nobel Piece Prize, no matter what. The Nobel Piece Prize has become a worthless and meaningless joke.

    And - where's the supposed demonstration of strength in any of that?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    alastair wrote: »
    And - where's the supposed demonstration of strength in any of that?

    Those are some themes Trump ran on. At this early stage of the game the top choices that experts think he might pick in key spots are a good indication that he plans on dealing from strength. Such as General James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis to serve as his Secretary of Defense, Michael T. Flynn as his National Security Adviser, and Mike Pompeo as CIA Director.


Advertisement