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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

El Presidente Trump

1…194195197199200…276

Comments

  • #5882
    ECO_Mental
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,725 ✭✭✭ECO_Mental


    ebbsy wrote: »
    I find it is always easier to follow the winners. Last time I looked Trump and GOP were top of the pile, while the Democrats were a complete shambles.

    You can't sink any lower than getting the Greens to seek recounts for ya (who then cant even get a recount in some states).

    He doesn't need celebs or lying newspapers to win. He doesn't need to spend more than his opponents on negative advertising to win either.

    That's great ebbsy... but what do you think of the CIA etc investigating Hillarys campaign in that she got support form the KGB

    6.1kWp south facing, South of Cork City



  • #5883
    Oliver Beetroot
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 49 ✭Oliver Beetroot


    ECO_Mental wrote: »
    That's great ebbsy... but what do you think of the CIA etc investigating Hillarys campaign in that she got support form the KGB

    Is this what they call whataboutery?


  • #5884
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Oliver Beetroot wrote: »
    Is this what they call whataboutery?

    Whataboutery would be more along the lines of claiming "but but but... BUT HILLARY!" in response to post election actions taken by the winner of that election, over a month after said election has finished.


  • #5885
    ebbsy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,260 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    ECO_Mental wrote: »
    ebbsy wrote: »
    I find it is always easier to follow the winners. Last time I looked Trump and GOP were top of the pile, while the Democrats were a complete shambles.

    You can't sink any lower than getting the Greens to seek recounts for ya (who then cant even get a recount in some states).

    He doesn't need celebs or lying newspapers to win. He doesn't need to spend more than his opponents on negative advertising to win either.

    That's great ebbsy... but what do you think of the CIA etc investigating Hillarys campaign in that she got support form the KGB

    It's nothing more than an attempt to hide their own failures.


  • #5886
    peasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,789 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    Don't let yourselves get bogged down in details, look at the big picture



    more where that came from and all worth watching


  • Advertisement
  • #5887
    Berserker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,043 ✭✭✭Berserker


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    he may have won, but it seems like everybody could be a loser at the end of this one

    What have you seen or heard about so far that would suggest that the RoI is going to be a loser? I'm not talking about 'maybes' posted by people online, I'm talking about concrete plans.


  • #5888
    ebbsy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,260 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    GreenFolder2 wrote: »
    Well I guess the only good that might come of it is a massive drive for reform in the US Federal electoral system generally in the coming years.

    Because you lost ? Bull****.


  • #5889
    ECO_Mental
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,725 ✭✭✭ECO_Mental


    Oliver Beetroot wrote: »
    Is this what they call whataboutery?

    It's not "whataboutery" I'm trying to get the Fraud Trumps fan base to actually "think" about what they trying to justify. If it were anybody else's name they would be up in arms. They are blinded by devotion to this idol.

    6.1kWp south facing, South of Cork City



  • #5890
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,548 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Berserker wrote: »
    What have you seen or heard about so far that would suggest that the RoI is going to be a loser? I'm not talking about 'maybes' posted by people online, I'm talking about concrete plans.

    nobody has seen any real plans yet so nobody really knows what may or may not happen but as people like noam chomsky say, trumps unpredictability is a very dangerous trait in a world leader. expect the unexpected, this will be a very unusual presidency, but going on his behaviour during the campaign, expect some really terrible things. he has appointed some nasty people in the form of ex bankers, ex fossil fuel ceo's, climate change deniers etc etc etc. oh this guys a beaut! it wouldnt surprise me if he is a sociopath or has sociopathic tendencies. watch out world


  • #5891
    Berserker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,043 ✭✭✭Berserker


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    nobody has seen any real plans yet so nobody really knows what may or may not happen but as people like noam chomsky say, trumps unpredictability is a very dangerous trait in a world leader. expect the unexpected, this will be a very unusual presidency, but going on his behaviour during the campaign, expect some really terrible things. he has appointed some nasty people in the form of ex bankers, ex fossil fuel ceo's, climate change deniers etc etc etc. oh this guys a beaut! it wouldnt surprise me if he is a sociopath or has sociopathic tendencies. watch out world

    So, why don't we wait and see what he plans to do, as opposed to getting all hot and bothered about what he might do?


  • Advertisement
  • #5892
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    ECO_Mental wrote: »
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/09/first-100-days-can-trump-really-drain-swamp.html

    This is hilarious did you hear that Hillary wants to clean up Washington"Drain the swamp" I hear. Anyway one thing she wants to do is not get foreign money for elections. Funny thing is the B**** actually in this election emailed foreign MPs for money for her own election. Can you believe it, the corruption of the Climtons

    Was it Israel and Aipac or Saudi?


  • #5893
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    The CIA has been neo-conservative for a long time now, it certainly managed to get the WMD story "right" - that is pro-American imperialist propaganda. It's got this story right too. It's got a long history of bring anti-Russian and it does, of course, interfere in democratic elections all over the world. Russia included.

    Anyway the wiki leaks documents were a hack of a DNC server not of any government, nor of any properly secured documents.

    The evidence is slim that it was Russia. As much as the modern left wants to believe the CIA deep state propaganda they have been known to lie. And they've provided very little evidence.

    Wiki leaks initially released this information when Sanders was campaigning - you might as well accuse Sanders of being a Russian stooge.

    (In fact that most damning evidence was regarding the DNC's support for Clinton prior to her nomination.)

    The people who were swayed by the emails were swayed by the content of the emails or the lack of security regarding the emails, regardless of who leaked what. Any re-run of the election would probably see a much larger swing to trump. That said the psy-ops here is to influence electors who haven't voted yet.


  • #5894
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,046 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    peasant wrote: »
    Don't let yourselves get bogged down in details, look at the big picture



    more where that came from and all worth watching

    I have to say, Keith Olbermann has a knack of talking to his audience like he is standing atop a mountain in flowing white robes with the sun rising behind him preaching right. Meanwhile the audience are grovelling, squirming and prone at the floor of the valley many miles below, covered in muck and excrement and stinking of urine, wallowing in ocean of wrong.

    I remember him doing a piece on Trump having access to the nuclear codes and him taking 10 minutes or so to patronise people as to what the nuclear codes were and how they were used. I remember thinking - this is the main reason people will vote Trump. They hate people like Keith Olbermann.

    Not that Olbermann isnt on the right side of history, its just I wish he was a Trump supporter because then his style would work for the advancement of mankind by alienating people from Trump.


  • #5895
    Fakediamond
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,060 ✭✭✭Fakediamond


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    it wouldnt surprise me if he is a sociopath or has sociopathic tendencies. watch out world

    No kidding, you really need to read this:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/

    It's the best profile of Trump that I've come across, he has no soul, apparently.


  • #5896
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    dudara wrote: »
    How do we know that everything that has been posted on Wikileaks is true? I'm not trying to stir here, but I'm asking a genuine question. Do Wikileaks verify everything that is published? How do they authenticate the material?

    It's great that a concept such as Wikileaks exists, but we can't place 100% trusting faith in it, or any organisation.




    Deleted User wrote: »
    Could you please set out how is it a fact, preferably referring to findings by independent reviews.

    I have no idea that it's a fact at all.



    It's a fact because it's a copy of documents that can be proven to be different very very easily. Wikileaks could be destroyed by the many many organizations they've exposed but it's never happened. That's the proof. It's so fủcking obvious. Why do I have to explain such basic shỉt?

    If anything was ever fake, ever ever ever ever ever, they wouldn't exist.


    To propose any other logic than what I've given makes you a complete and utter imbecile.


  • #5897
    dudara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's a fact because it's a copy of documents that can be proven to be different very very easily. Wikileaks could be destroyed by the many many organizations they've exposed but it's never happened. That's the proof. It's so fủcking obvious. Why do I have to explain such basic shỉt?

    If anything was ever fake, ever ever ever ever ever, they wouldn't exist.


    To propose any other logic than what I've given makes you a complete and utter imbecile.

    For me, the absence of disproof does not automatically equal proof. I agree with you that the documents are probably certainly true, but I wouldn't be thinking independently if I didn't question its methods or source.


  • #5898
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    dudara wrote: »
    For me, the absence of disproof does not automatically equal proof. I agree with you that the documents are probably certainly true, but I wouldn't be thinking independently if I didn't question its methods or source.

    Every new release should bring doubt and people don't use them as proof straight away. But if they're never refuted, they're automatically true. The US government has made it perfectly clear they're true.

    For people here to doubt them at this point is disappointing. Even on /r/hillaryclinton , they don't question their authenticity but people on After Hours do.


  • #5899
    GreenFolder2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 710 ✭✭✭GreenFolder2


    He's right though. It's been an utterly abnormal election and everyone is running around in a state of amnesia, forgetting all the horrible stuff he spewed to get elected and adopting this "ah sure give him a chance" approach.

    It's likely to be at best a very weird few years.


  • #5900
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Trump has said it didn't happen. That's that.






    Putin told him.


  • #5901
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    Trump has said it didn't happen. That's that.






    Putin told him.

    Point to anything anywhere that suggests Trump colluded with Russia.


  • Advertisement
  • #5902
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Two major members of his campaign resigned, only after coming under investigation for their various dodgy connections with Russia. These connections were well known about even before they were hired for the campaign.


  • #5903
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Point to anything anywhere that suggests Trump colluded with Russia.

    Why do I have to? He's just a stooge.


  • #5904
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    Why do I have to? He's just a stooge.

    For who?


  • #5905
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Deleted User wrote: »
    For who?

    Take a wild guess


  • #5906
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    Take a wild guess

    No. If you're going to call someone a stooge, then be reasonable and back it up with something.


  • #5907
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No. If you're going to call someone a stooge, then be reasonable and back it up with something.

    Yes. Take a guess. Why do I have to back it up? What's my opinion of Trump to you?


  • #5908
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    Yes. Take a guess. Why do I have to back it up? What's my opinion of Trump to you?

    What's it to me? Absolutely sweet fưck all. I just want to know where you read that Trump colluded with Russia.


  • #5909
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What's it to me? Absolutely sweet fưck all. I just want to know where you read that Trump colluded with Russia.

    You denied that Trump collided with Russia. I never asserted that he did. I said he denied That the CIA report on DNC hacking was done by Russia. I just want to know why you are so sensitive about Trump being mocked? Why so committed to him? He's a pussy grabber btw.


  • #5910
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    You denied that Trump collided with Russia. I never asserted that he did. I said he denied That the CIA report on DNC hacking was done by Russia. I just want to know why you are so sensitive about Trump being mocked? Why so committed to him? He's a pussy grabber btw.

    You denied that Trump collided with Russia.
    Of course I did. It's the information we have to go on.

    I never asserted that he did.
    You called him a stooge.

    I said he denied That the CIA report on DNC hacking was done by Russia.
    Not since I've been talking to you.

    I just want to know why you are so sensitive about Trump being mocked?
    Why so committed to him?
    I've watched most of my friends sacrifice every bit of their intelligence. I'm not committed to him. I'd probably rather have Hillary to be honest. I was only ever a Hillary-hater.

    He's a pussy grabber btw.
    You win. Great point. Very relevant.


    When will people realise that you can't win arguments online with this tripe? Argue truthfully or don't argue at all. If you think your point or position is strong, you shouldn't need to lie.


  • Advertisement
  • #5911
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You denied that Trump collided with Russia.
    Of course I did. It's the information we have to go on.

    I never asserted that he did.
    You called him a stooge.

    I said he denied That the CIA report on DNC hacking was done by Russia.
    Not since I've been talking to you.

    I just want to know why you are so sensitive about Trump being mocked?
    Why so committed to him?
    I've watched most of my friends sacrifice every bit of their intelligence. I'm not committed to him. I'd probably rather have Hillary to be honest. I was only ever a Hillary-hater.

    He's a pussy grabber btw.
    You win. Great point. Very relevant.


    When will people realise that you can't win arguments online with this tripe? Argue truthfully or don't argue at all. If you think your point or position is strong, you shouldn't need to lie.

    Extraordinary blindness to the exchange. The blindness of the fanatical supporter no doubt. Let's take you through a few things, slowly.

    I'm glad you agree that it's a great point the Trump is a pussy grabber. It's is very relevant to any discussion of him because it goes to character.

    You haven't explained why you are so sensitive about Trump. It's very odd.

    My first post in this exchange was that Trumpski had denied that the Russians were involved. I think you might find it if you look. It's where I said "Trump said it didn't happen". Do you get that?

    I called him a stooge. I didn't say for who. Neither did you. Another poster pointed to something interesting on the Russian front but you can look that up if you want.

    So as any reasonable person can see, I haven't told any lies about Trump here. Curious that you add a statement about lies at the end of your multi quote posturing, about lies. I didn't tell any. Do you think all your statements are accurate? I have shown clearly that one is not. I haven't concluded that you're a liar. There are other possibilities. Intellectual laziness. Arrogance. Lying could be there. Stupidity. Shilling for someone. There are a whole range of possibilities. I haven't accused you of any.

    I don't want a yellow card after all.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement