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…195196198200201…276

Comments

  • #5912
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    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.

    How does that work?


  • #5913
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    No evidence that Russia tried to interfere in the election at all. Do not trust the CIA, the same institution which helped America go to war in Vietnam on a lie. Iraq on a lie.


  • #5914
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    No evidence that Russia tried to interfere in the election at all. Do not trust the CIA, the same institution which helped America go to war in Vietnam on a lie. Iraq on a lie.

    What evidence would convince you?


  • #5915
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    No evidence that Russia tried to interfere in the election at all. Do not trust the CIA, the same institution which helped America go to war in Vietnam on a lie. Iraq on a lie.

    What evidence would convince you?
    That the Russian administration had a policy on interfering on the US election. Also what makes me laugh is if Russia did hack the DNC emails, people are more concerned about that than the fact it exposed Hillary for the crook she is. You can't be exposed if you have nothing to hide. Unlucky for Hillary.


  • #5916
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    That the Russian administration had a policy on interfering on the US election. Also what makes me laugh is if Russia did hack the DNC emails, people are more concerned about that than the fact it exposed Hillary for the crook she is. You can't be exposed if you have nothing to hide. Unlucky for Hillary.

    So if the CIA hacked the hackers computers and found a policy document and produced it you'd be convinced?


  • Advertisement
  • #5917
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    That the Russian administration had a policy on interfering on the US election. Also what makes me laugh is if Russia did hack the DNC emails, people are more concerned about that than the fact it exposed Hillary for the crook she is. You can't be exposed if you have nothing to hide. Unlucky for Hillary.

    So if the CIA hacked the hackers computers and found a policy document and produced it you'd be convinced?
    Why does it matter? She lost and lost badly, Russia did NOT hack into the DNC emails, it is complete nonsense. I believe Julian Assange when he said it wasn't Russia.


  • #5918
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Why does it matter? She lost and lost badly, Russia did NOT hack into the DNC emails, it is complete nonsense. I believe Julian Assange when he said it wasn't Russia.

    You said a policy document would convince you. Now you won't answer the question I asked.

    You are now shouting that Russia did not hack the DNC but you don't have any evidence that they didn't apart from believing Julian Assange's claim.

    Has he forensically analysed the hack?


  • #5919
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    How does that work?

    Like all American elections. You vote against the other side.. Doesn't mean you like the candidate you voted for. I'm happy to see her lose but she'd have probably been a been a person to have won. I'm not American.

    Flee, it's 2:50am, I'll reply tomorrow if I remember.


  • #5920
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Like all American elections. You vote against the other side.. Doesn't mean you like the candidate you voted for. I'm happy to see her lose but she'd have probably been a been a person to have won. I'm not American.

    Flee, it's 2:50am, I'll reply tomorrow if I remember.

    The oul Alzheimer's is a hoor.


  • #5921
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Like all American elections. You vote against the other side.. Doesn't mean you like the candidate you voted for. I'm happy to see her lose but she'd have probably been a been a person to have won. I'm not American.

    Flee, it's 2:50am, I'll reply tomorrow if I remember.

    It was Hobson's choice but I don't think that people always vote in that way. For instance, many voted for Trump because they thought he was going to bring jobs home. And a portion of that cohort would have voted Democrat if they believed the Democratic candidate would bring jobs home. In this regard, for example, much of the Rust Belt used to be solidly Democrat but flipped for Trump's anti-trade and anti-globalisation rhetoric.


  • Advertisement
  • #5922
    Steve012
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 938 ✭✭✭Steve012


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Why does it matter? She lost and lost badly, Russia did NOT hack into the DNC emails, it is complete nonsense. I believe Julian Assange when he said it wasn't Russia.

    How do you know Russia did "not" ?


  • #5923
    ebbsy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,260 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.

    He can't back it up because it's bull****.

    Just like the Women coming forward but have no evidence that Trump assaulted them (would love to see their bank balances), or the claims that Clinton won the nomination fairly. Where are these stories in the media ?


  • #5924
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Why does it matter? She lost and lost badly, Russia did NOT hack into the DNC emails, it is complete nonsense. I believe Julian Assange when he said it wasn't Russia.

    You said a policy document would convince you. Now you won't answer the question I asked.

    You are now shouting that Russia did not hack the DNC but you don't have any evidence that they didn't apart from believing Julian Assange's claim.

    Has he forensically analysed the hack?
    I have no evidence that a tea pot is flying around mars. You make the claim, some sort of evidence or source would be nice.


  • #5925
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    To be fair if Putin wanted to influence US Politics, he could have just donated a few million to the Clinton Foundation.


  • #5926
    HellSquirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭HellSquirrel


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    I have no evidence that a tea pot is flying around mars. You make the claim, some sort of evidence or source would be nice.

    Yeah, but if NASA said "teapot from lost shuttle found orbiting earth with terrestrial debris" would you said "Rubbish! There are no teapots in space! What has NASA done that I should trust them?!" people might be inclined to suspect you have a whole hive of bees in your bonnet.

    Which, tbh, you come across as having.


  • #5927
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Snowden was dubbed a Russian spy lest we forget!


  • #5928
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,894 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    ebbsy wrote: »
    He can't back it up because it's bull****.

    Just like the Women coming forward but have no evidence that Trump assaulted them (would love to see their bank balances), or the claims that Clinton won the nomination fairly. Where are these stories in the media ?

    Did you buy into the whole 'Bill Clinton raped women' stuff during the election campaign ?
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    No evidence that Russia tried to interfere in the election at all. Do not trust the CIA, the same institution which helped America go to war in Vietnam on a lie. Iraq on a lie.

    Can we trust the 3 independent organisations that have absolutely no ties to the CIA/NSA/... who all came to the exact same conclusion ?

    I mean, I know it must be super easy to just do away with anything you don't like as lies or propaganda, unfortunately the real world doesn't work like that.

    On another note, it's fun to see China smacking him down in public. They flew a goddamn nuke over the South China Sea in response to him.

    edit: I just read he said he doesn't need daily intel briefings since he is 'a smart man' (his words). 2 years ago he complained about Obama not getting daily intel briefings.


  • #5929
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Did you buy into the whole 'Bill Clinton raped women' stuff during the election campaign ?

    Bill's an Angel, shoving Cigar tubes up Lewinski's snatch in the oval office. Then there's the 12 year affair with Gennifer Flower's which he admitted to under oath. He ended up having to pay $850,000 to Paula Jones for sexual assault, and that's only the tip of the iceberg as far as his accusers go.



    What a champ.


  • #5930
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,894 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Bill's an Angel, shoving Cigar tubes up Lewinski's snatch in the oval office. Then there's the 12 year affair with Gennifer Flower's which he admitted to under oath. He ended up having to pay $850,000 to Paula Jones for sexual assault, and that's only the tip of the iceberg as far as his accusers go.



    What a champ.

    I do hope you're aware that the Paula Jones case was dismissed because there was no convincing evidence to back up her story, right ? Just like he didn't have to pay her anything. It was an out-of-court settlement. Granted, it does make it look dodgy but that's still not proof.

    But thank you for proving my point.


  • #5931
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,878 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    What a champ.

    Grab 'em, I say. Wait. That's Trump that says that. Not me. Even if I'm NYC born and raised, never heard it said (unlike a poster here who claims everyone in NYC says it.)

    Back to the President Elect - since he's not getting his Intel from the US agencies, you think he's getting it from Russia? Or is that going to be Tillerson's job?

    How soon before Tillerson rolls back the sanctions against Russia's oil exploration efforts?

    SoS is, in my opinion, the 2d most important position in the US Government, after President. The rest of them are mostly responsible for domestic policy or are highly placed in succession (VP, Speaker of the House.)

    The SoS is the voice of US, and hence the democratic world's foreign policy. Scary that some guy that's worked for Exxon all his life will hold that job. Can't wait to see how he does with a restive China, the UN, the litany of crises worldwide, especially the ones that have nothing to do with energy like, for example, Uighurs in China, Tibet, SE asia saber rattling, Indonesians trying to flood into Australia, Myanmar, ...

    And, is he divesting himself of all his Exxon holdings? Hundreds of millions at least in stock and options, 2.4m shares shown on Yahoo and that's the easy-to-get data.


  • Advertisement
  • #5932
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    I do hope you're aware that the Paula Jones case was dismissed because there was no convincing evidence to back up her story, right ? Just like he didn't have to pay her anything. It was an out-of-court settlement. Granted, it does make it look dodgy but that's still not proof.

    But thank you for proving my point.

    Actually Paula Jones appealed and he paid her off. He flew on Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita express plane 26 times , many times without the secret service. I agree it's not proof of rape, but there is proof he is a scumbag and given all his accusers of sexual assault and political power, I wouldn't belittle anyone for believing he's a Sex offender. In fact straight out denying the possibility has less credibility imo.


  • #5933
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,894 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Actually Paula Jones appealed and he paid her off. He flew on Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita express plane 26 times , many times without the secret service. I agree it's not proof of rape, but there is proof he is a scumbag and given all his accusers of sexual assault and political power, I wouldn't belittle anyone for believing he's a Sex offender. In fact straight out denying the possibility has less credibility imo.

    Settling out of court is now seen as paying someone off ? Trump must be the worst in that case...

    It's almost as if we don't know exactly why he paid her. Could easily be that he 'simply' wanted to get it over with and continue with his life, as per his lawyer.

    And once again you're simply proving my point. You seem to believe he did all of those things that Republicans love to accuse him off (at least you're a bit more nuanced than the ebbsy's/A Little Pony's of the world), despite no clear evidence. But when it comes to Trump we're supposed to wait for hard evidence ?

    You can't have it both ways.


  • #5934
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Settling out of court is now seen as paying someone off ? Trump must be the worst in that case...

    It's almost as if we don't know exactly why he paid her. Could easily be that he 'simply' wanted to get it over with and continue with his life, as per his lawyer.

    And once again you're simply proving my point. You seem to believe he did all of those things that Republicans love to accuse him off (at least you're a bit more nuanced than the ebbsy's/A Little Pony's of the world), despite no clear evidence. But when it comes to Trump we're supposed to wait for hard evidence ?

    You can't have it both ways.

    I don't believe anything for certain when it comes to Bill Clinton's sexual exploits besides the stuff he admitted too when he got caught out. I am highly suspicious though and think he's a scumbag, is that wrong?


  • #5935
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    To be fair if Putin wanted to influence US Politics, he could have just donated a few million to the Clinton Foundation.

    Rather than the trump campaign, who surely came begging to him also as they did so many politicians and businesspeople around the world.


  • #5936
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,894 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    I don't believe anything for certain when it comes to Bill Clinton's sexual exploits besides the stuff he admitted too when he got caught out. I am highly suspicious though and think he's a scumbag, is that wrong?

    It's not. However (and that wasn't you but some others in this thread) seem to be perfectly fine with accusing Clinton of everything but when others do the same about Trump they want evidence or proof.

    It doesn't work that way.


  • #5937
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    You said a policy document would convince you. Now you won't answer the question I asked.

    You are now shouting that Russia did not hack the DNC but you don't have any evidence that they didn't apart from believing Julian Assange's claim.

    Has he forensically analysed the hack?

    The onus is on you.

    The left are vociferously defending baseless politicised allegations being made by the CIA as a pretext for conflict with a foreign government.

    We have come full circle.


  • #5938
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    oik wrote: »
    The onus is on you.

    The left are vociferously defending baseless politicised allegations being made by the CIA as a pretext for conflict with a foreign government.

    We have come full circle.

    The onus is on both. You have made the claim that the CIA are attempting to create a conflict with Russia without proof. Just as the claim that Russia influenced the election requires more proof.


  • #5939
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    Christy42 wrote: »
    The onus is on both. You have made the claim that the CIA are attempting to create a conflict with Russia without proof. Just as the claim that Russia influenced the election requires more proof.

    Only time will tell. The CIA by it's very nature is a secretive organisation and one can only guess what their angle is, but they have a track record and it's more likely that the track record continues then that it doesn't.

    Interesting how the Democrats tune has changed on the possibility of a rigged election.

    They've already claimed it's impossible to rug so now when they say it was rigged for Trump no one believes them

    He has really done a number on them. Their credibility among independents must be approaching single digits at this stage.


  • #5940
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,894 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    oik wrote: »
    The onus is on you.

    The left are vociferously defending baseless politicised allegations being made by the CIA as a pretext for conflict with a foreign government.

    We have come full circle.

    You mean lefties like John McCain and Lindsey Graham ?

    Also, the allegations aren't even remotely baseless.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/politics/cia-judgment-intelligence-russia-hacking-evidence.html?_r=0

    edit: And just to point, since you seem to miss it. It's not the CIA alone that is saying that Russia influenced the election. Several independent organisations say the same. So unless you think it's a grand conspiracy backed by the CIA then there really is quite a lot to indicate it happened.

    If it wasn't true, why is Trump so opposed to an investigation ? Surely he would want to clear his presidency of the taint of Russian influence ?


  • Advertisement
  • #5941
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    You mean lefties like John McCain and Lindsey Graham ?

    Also, the allegations aren't even remotely baseless.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/politics/cia-judgment-intelligence-russia-hacking-evidence.html?_r=0

    edit: And just to point, since you seem to miss it. It's not the CIA alone that is saying that Russia influenced the election. Several independent organisations say the same. So unless you think it's a grand conspiracy backed by the CIA then there really is quite a lot to indicate it happened.

    Lefties on the same side as McCain and Graham in relation to foreign policy. Hence, full circle.

    Did you even read the article you posted? They say they have no hard evidence, only circumstantial and they haven't even told us what that circumstantial evidence is. Besides it's only the news media that has been reporting this. No official source has gone on record. If you want to believe "sources" go right ahead, I'll continue to stand back and laugh.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement