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…205206208210211…276

Comments

  • #6212
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Billy86 wrote: »
    And again, nothing there about him being on their payroll. Nor was there anything about Savannah Guthrie being on their payroll. I understand you're still in 'deflect from Trump, keep to the BUT BUT BUT HILLARY! memo' mode, but yet you're not backing your statements up with fact.

    Meanwhile, Trump was one of the faces of NBC for the last decade or so.

    Give me a break.

    Here's another email of Debbie Wasserman Schultz telling Chuck Todd that the criticism of Clinton, quote, "Needs to stop".

    https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10945

    Todd is NBC's political director. He's being told what to do by the DNC.

    I'm not deflecting ANYTHING. I'm showing your REAL EMAILS OF COLLUSION.

    Jesus christ, every when there's CLEAR PROOF of collusion people will deny it. You think all these people are doing the campaign favors out of the goodness of their hearts?


  • #6213
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    You genuinely believe Fox is the only believable network ? They're the exact same (even worse imo), only biased towards Trump and his ilk.

    No I don't, they're all bad to a degree. I like the hosts on Fox and I find it entertaining. CNN is the worst for race baiting/not hiding their bias and hosts like Chris Cuomo make me want to puke.

    https://www.yahoo.com/tv/cable-ratings-fox-news-beats-cnn-msnbc-combined-183335546.html

    Fox are beating CNN and msNBC combined so I'm not alone! I hope these disgusting networks will be extinct soon.

    Igotadose gets the two links he wanted and doesn't reply. It's always the same sh/te.


  • #6214
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Give me a break.

    Here's another email of Debbie Wasserman Schultz telling Chuck Todd that the criticism of Clinton, quote, "Needs to stop".

    https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10945

    Todd is NBC's political director. He's being told what to do by the DNC.

    I'm not deflecting ANYTHING. I'm showing your REAL EMAILS OF COLLUSION.

    Jesus christ, every when there's CLEAR PROOF of collusion people will deny it. You think all these people are doing the campaign favors out of the goodness of their hearts?
    And a response from him where he never agrees to. I guess he's just so busy being in their imaginary payroll that you seem to have made up that he forgot to agree, and forgot to stop running stories - including these negative ones about Wasserman Schultz in the few days/weeks after that email (dated May 18th).

    http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/report-dems-discuss-dropping-dnc-chair-692449347554
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-supports-wasserman-schultz-opponent-says-if-elected-shes-out-dnc-chair
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-broke-federal-rules-email-server-audit-finds-n580131
    http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/trump-doesn-t-buy-loretta-lynch-s-explanation-717123651999
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/what-the-state-department-email-report-means-hillary-clinton
    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-majority-americans-dislike-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-n578926
    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-state-dept-audit-bad-news-clinton-n580481

    It's pretty obvious you're deflecting from talking about Trump in the Trump thread.


  • #6215
    Trent Houseboat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,116 ✭✭✭Trent Houseboat


    Jelle1880 wrote:
    Haha, holy ****. I just saw his speech in Michigan. That part about Hillary is brilliant, and his fans no doubt lap it up.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...-a7467071.html

    So he was either too stupid to know that there was nothing to lock her up for and was just told this after the election. Or, he knew that she hadn't committed a crime and lied to his supporters to whip up vitriolic fervour and the gullible amongst them ate it up.

    Any second now his supporters will admit that they were wrong and that he's a liar and a fraud. Any second now. I mean it's not as though anyone is still just regurgitation his lies as thought they're fact without checking anymore.


  • #6216
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Billy86 wrote: »

    It's pretty obvious you're deflecting from talking about Trump in the Trump thread.

    He asked me to provide proof showing NBC collusion, and a link showing the FBI denying Trumps connection to Russia, I did both. What do you want from me?

    Do you expect any network to only run pro Hillary stories?

    The fact is the majority of the MSM were colluding with the DNC. There's hundreds of emails showing it. Do you think the networks and papers were doing it for free?

    Here's a video of one of the morning Joe hosts saying the campaign rang them up, it's somewhat related to one of the emails.



  • Advertisement
  • #6217
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Trent Houseboat wrote: »
    So he was either too stupid to know that there was nothing to lock her up for and was just told this after the election. Or, he knew that she hadn't committed a crime and lied to his supporters to whip up vitriolic fervour and the gullible amongst them ate it up.

    Any second now his supporters will admit that they were wrong and that he's a liar and a fraud. Any second now. I mean it's not as though anyone is still just regurgitation his lies as thought they're fact without checking anymore.

    It's out of his control if he gets in. If he says at a rally he's gonna go after her now that the election is over the media will slaughter him and everyone will say it's not presidential. Can't win either way. But to suggest there was nothing to prosecute her for is just laughable. She had the DOJ ( sending her emails about what was coming up in the hearings and how to answer them ) and the AG ( meeting with Bill on the back of a plane before the hearings ) in her pocket, you know that thing called corruption.

    Personally I couldn't give a sh1t since she lost.


  • #6218
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    If he says at a rally he's gonna go after her now that the election is over the media will slaughter him and everyone will say it's not presidential. Can't win either way.
    Can't win either way?

    Right. And why is that? Because he lied. He made a massive pack of wild promises and lies throughout his campaign. And these are the reason why he's the president-elect.

    And now his supporters like you are doubling-down and defending those lies on the basis, "well, he can't win, can he?".

    If his entire campaign is based on nonsense and lies, then everyone who voted for him has been conned. He cannot be trusted to deliver on anything that he has promised. Everyone who voted for him for any reason has no surity that he won't do the exact opposite.

    Why would anyone continue to defend someone who promises everything and delivers nothing?


  • #6219
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    He asked me to provide proof showing NBC collusion, and a link showing the FBI denying Trumps connection to Russia, I did both. What do you want from me?
    No, he and Christy were talking about Putin's role in the US election and possible collusion between him and Trump. And as soon as he linked to an NBC article, you jumped in to try and deflect by claiming NBC are on Clinton's payroll (with no proof of it). Standard deflection, straight from the 'BUT BUT BUT... BUT HILLARY' playbook.
    Do you expect any network to only run pro Hillary stories?

    The fact is the majority of the MSM were colluding with the DNC. There's hundreds of emails showing it. Do you think the networks and papers were doing it for free?
    All negative stories about Trump = media conspiracy. All negative stories about Clinton & co = nothing to see here, probably part of the same media conspiracy. Sure.
    Here's a video of one of the morning Joe hosts saying the campaign rang them up, it's somewhat related to one of the emails.

    At work so can't watch, but given your last effort I doubt I'm missing much. By this standard, if a referee calls a foul on a football player in a game and his manager exchanges words on the way to the dressing rooms, it is automatically a conspiracy against the other team and the referee is now somehow paid by the manager's club as of the second half, with every foul called against the other team being unquestionable proof of this conspiracy and every foul called for them being just a case of 'nothing to see here!', if not even further proof of them trying to mask the conspiracy.

    Well either that, or a deflection tactic... like deflecting from talking about Putin's role in the election and possible collusion between him and President Trump, you know... the person that the thread is about.


  • #6220
    Trent Houseboat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,116 ✭✭✭Trent Houseboat


    Hank Scorpio wrote:
    It's out of his control if he gets in. If he says at a rally he's gonna go after her now that the election is over the media will slaughter him and everyone will say it's not presidential. Can't win either way. But to suggest there was nothing to prosecute her for is just laughable. She had the DOJ ( sending her emails about what was coming up in the hearings and how to answer them ) and the AG ( meeting with Bill on the back of a plane before the hearings ) in her pocket, you know that thing called corruption.

    The point is that it was never in his hands. If he thought it was he's an idiot who wants to run the country like a dictatorship, if people believed it was they're idiots who wanted a dictator. Those two are not mutually exclusive.


  • #6221
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    seamus wrote: »
    Can't win either way?

    Right. And why is that? Because he lied. He made a massive pack of wild promises and lies throughout his campaign. And these are the reason why he's the president-elect.

    And now his supporters like you are doubling-down and defending those lies on the basis, "well, he can't win, can he?".

    If his entire campaign is based on nonsense and lies, then everyone who voted for him has been conned. He cannot be trusted to deliver on anything that he has promised.

    Why would anyone continue to defend someone who promises everything and delivers nothing?

    He's not even in office and he's delivered nothing. Right you are.


  • Advertisement
  • #6222
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Billy86 wrote: »
    No, he and Christy were talking about Putin's role in the US election and possible collusion between him and Trump. And as soon as he linked to an NBC article, you jumped in to try and deflect by claiming NBC are on Clinton's payroll (with no proof of it). Standard deflection, straight from the 'BUT BUT BUT... BUT HILLARY' playbook.

    All negative stories about Trump = media conspiracy. All negative stories about Clinton & co = nothing to see here, probably part of the same media conspiracy. Sure.

    At work so can't watch, but given your last effort I doubt I'm missing much. By this standard, if a referee calls a foul on a football player in a game and his manager exchanges words on the way to the dressing rooms, it is automatically a conspiracy against the other team and the referee is now somehow paid by the manager's club as of the second half, with every foul called against the other team being unquestionable proof of this conspiracy and every foul called for them being just a case of 'nothing to see here!', if not even further proof of them trying to mask the conspiracy.

    Well either that, or a deflection tactic... like deflecting from talking about Putin's role in the election and possible collusion between him and President Trump, you know... the person that the thread is about.

    So I answer a question someone asked and I'm deflecting even though the original topic I was talking about was Russia.There's hundreds of leaked emails showing actual collusion and you're babbling about a hypothetical soccer match. So you think it's fair Hillary had the debate questions and her opponent didn't? Or that the DNC were writing the interviews for CNN when they were interviewing her opponent?


  • #6223
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    He's not even in office and he's delivered nothing. Right you are.
    He's not even in office and he's already scrapping the things he promised to deliver. Like jailing Hillary.

    Most politicians wait until they're in power before admitting that they were a little optimistic in their promises.

    Trump isn't even in the door yet and he's already admitting his campaign was all lies. Why are you defending him?

    At this stage Trump is just as likely to deliver a liberal agenda as a conservative one, such is the extent of the vapour in his campaign.


  • #6224
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    seamus wrote: »
    He's not even in office and he's already scrapping the things he promised to deliver. Like jailing Hillary.

    Most politicians wait until they're in power before admitting that they were a little optimistic in their promises.

    Trump isn't even in the door yet and he's already admitting his campaign was all lies. Why are you defending him?

    At this stage Trump is just as likely to deliver a liberal agenda as a conservative one, such is the extent of the vapour in his campaign.

    How can he jail Hillary when he's not in office exactly? It would look terrible to say it post election and create a sh1tstorm in the media.

    I'm not happy at some of his cabinet picks, others I like. I'm at least willing to wait until he starts the job before completely disowning him.


  • #6225
    Trent Houseboat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,116 ✭✭✭Trent Houseboat


    Hank Scorpio wrote:
    How can he jail Hillary when he's not in office exactly? It would look terrible to say it post election and create a sh1tstorm in the media.

    It looked terrible before the election. Threatening to imprison political opponents who haven't committed crimes always looks terrible.


  • #6226
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    So I answer a question someone asked and I'm deflecting even though the original topic I was talking about was Russia.There's hundreds of leaked emails showing actual collusion and you're babbling about a hypothetical soccer match. So you think it's fair Hillary had the debate questions and her opponent didn't? Or that the DNC were writing the interviews for CNN when they were interviewing her opponent?
    I'm giving an example of the absurd mental loopholes you're jumping through, and your initial post did look to jump right in on the 'BUT HILLARY' line by claiming they were on the Clinton's payroll, which you still have not shown.

    Back onto the subject, I may have missed something but don't recall the FBI saying there is no link - from what I have seen they have said they think there very much was a link, but do not know the exact goals yet: “There’s no question that [the Russians’] efforts went one way, but it’s not clear that they have a specific goal or mix of related goals.”


  • #6227
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    How can he jail Hillary when he's not in office exactly? It would look terrible to say it post election and create a sh1tstorm in the media.

    I'm not happy at some of his cabinet picks, others I like. I'm at least willing to wait until he starts the job before completely disowning him.

    One thing is certain. His cabinet doesn't give a crap about the working class people who voted for Trump. Also, even if Chump turns out to be a bigly huge success, he's still grotesque.


  • #6228
    pumpkin4life
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭pumpkin4life


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Also, even if Chump turns out to be a bigly huge success, he's still grotesque.

    And that's the whole thread summed up in one line right there.


  • #6229
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Trent Houseboat wrote: »
    It looked terrible before the election. Threatening to imprison political opponents who haven't committed crimes always looks terrible.

    It worked, he won the election. About her committing crimes, I'd imagine it's hard to get in trouble when the DOJ and AG are corrupt and working with you.

    I'll have to side with people from congress like Gowdy (email server) and Jordan (Benghazi) on that one. :mad:


  • #6230
    Trent Houseboat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,116 ✭✭✭Trent Houseboat


    Hank Scorpio wrote:
    It worked, he won the election. About her committing crimes, I'd imagine it's hard to get in trouble when the DOJ and AG are corrupt and working with you.

    I don't think anyone disputes the fact that it worked. It's just a bit Stalininst in tone.
    Vote for me and I'll send the woman who didn't commit a crime to Siberia.

    If you'd asked me the campaign if threatening to imprison people you didn't like would help of hurt your chances I'd have chosen the latter. But I was wrong about what a lot of people would find off-putting in that election cycle.


  • #6231
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    The US establishment HAS to blame Russia, they have no choice. The CIA etc are just lying.

    Gone into overdrive now. They're using the Russian narrative and the media to push the notion an electoral flip is possible and not some crazy idea. Back to paying celebrities again, but this time to try and influence electors not voters.

    That is unbelievable! I can not believe they are paying US celebrities to STILL try and stop Trump from being President (which won't happen of course).


  • Advertisement
  • #6232
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,928 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    It worked, he won the election.
    If that's the entirety of the justification, that negates criticism of any behaviour by any candidate running for office.


  • #6233
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Billy86 wrote: »

    Back onto the subject, I may have missed something but don't recall the FBI saying there is no link - from what I have seen they have said they think there very much was a link, but do not know the exact goals yet: “There’s no question that [the Russians’] efforts went one way, but it’s not clear that they have a specific goal or mix of related goals.”

    Here's the link I posted of the FBI.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0

    There's conflicting reports from everywhere. James Clapper said the link between Wikileaks and Russia wasn't strong. Which means probably nothing.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/10/james-clapper-we-dont-have-good-insight-potential-/

    "The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E

    Yesterday the CIA didn't conform to congress but leaked more information to the media. The congressman called it political.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/15/rep-king-canceled-intel-briefing-on-alleged-russian-interference-in-us-election-is-disgraceful.html?refresh=true

    Wikileaks has denied strongly over the last two days of any connection with Russia.

    All I see is conflicting reports everywhere and no evidence. Not saying it's untrue either.


  • #6234
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,107 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    It worked, he won the election. About her committing crimes, I'd imagine it's hard to get in trouble when the DOJ and AG are corrupt and working with you.

    I'll have to side with people from congress like Gowdy (email server) and Jordan (Benghazi) on that one. :mad:

    So he lied? Why won't the law and order candidate put the measures in place to ensure someone who you are convinced is a crook into prison.

    Is it one law for the rich with Trump?

    Or if it was a politicians lie to get elected, what exact policies do you expect him to enact. I mean he was lying about a host of them. Which ones are you happy enough to have as trying to get elected and which ones do you feel he has to implement.


  • #6235
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    osarusan wrote: »
    If that's the entirety of the justification, that negates criticism of any behaviour by any candidate running for office.

    Fair point. The whole lock her thing came from the debate when he went on a tangent about her emails. The infamous "because you'd be in jail" line.


  • #6236
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    osarusan wrote: »
    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    It worked, he won the election.
    If that's the entirety of the justification, that negates criticism of any behaviour by any candidate running for office.
    We are in no position to question Trump legitimacy as we have people on this Island elected into government who actually murdered and bombed people.


  • #6237
    Trent Houseboat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,116 ✭✭✭Trent Houseboat


    Hank Scorpio wrote:
    Fair point. The whole lock her thing came from the debate when he went on a tangent about her emails. The infamous "because you'd be in jail" line.

    It started way before then.
    Rudi Guliani was foaming at the mouth at the convention in July talking about how he would have prosecuted her.


  • #6238
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Christy42 wrote: »
    So he lied? Why won't the law and order candidate put the measures in place to ensure someone who you are convinced is a crook into prison.

    Is it one law for the rich with Trump?

    Or if it was a politicians lie to get elected, what exact policies do you expect him to enact. I mean he was lying about a host of them. Which ones are you happy enough to have as trying to get elected and which ones do you feel he has to implement.

    How do we know Hillary won't be in trouble down the line and Trump knows this? The FBI and congress still have two separate investigations ongoing into the Clinton foundation, and likely several more. There's surely people who want her locked up even more than Trump does.

    He's continued to say he'll build a border wall for example, and that along with locking Hillary up was his most outlandish claim.

    Might be all moot anyway, there's a sh1tstorm coming with this Russia stuff.


  • #6239
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Trent Houseboat wrote: »
    It started way before then.
    Rudi Guliani was foaming at the mouth at the convention in July talking about how he would have prosecuted her.

    You're probably right. They threw everything at her, she was vicious too in fairness and had the media working overtime.


  • #6240
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    How do we know Hillary won't be in trouble down the line and Trump knows this? The FBI and congress still have two separate investigations ongoing into the Clinton foundation, and likely several more. There's surely people who want her locked up even more than Trump does.

    He's continued to say he'll build a border wall for example, and that along with locking Hillary up was his most outlandish claim.

    Might be all moot anyway, there's a sh1tstorm coming with this Russia stuff.
    You can get 2/1 on Trump not being president in a year's time. 6/4 on his being impeached or resigning.


  • Advertisement
  • #6241
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,928 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    You can get 2/1 on Trump not being present in a year's time. 6/4 on his being impeached or resigning.
    You're no bookmaker.

    The odds should be the other way round.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement