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

Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

1…1314161819…193

Comments

  • #452
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Igotadose wrote: »

    Should he have taken a question from the CNN reporter? I'm pinning you down right now on this one - he should have, in my opinion. What do you think?

    He wasn't called, then continued to shout over him, so no.

    Could Trump have selected him for a question? Yes, it would have been a good gesture.

    I don't believe in censoring any journalists who are allowed in there. To CNN's credit they didn't release the report, but they did get the ball rolling.


  • #453
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    It reminds of when the right complain about students for banning people who don't share their point of view from speaking at their university. Except now it is the POTUS and the right are completely cool with it (except Fox and fair play to them for that).

    This is absolutely compliment me or get put out into the cold. Remember most of the bull Donald has described over the past while as fake news has not. In fact I can't think of any that he was right about but I may have missed one.


  • #454
    skankkuvhima
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭skankkuvhima


    The latest from the Director of National Intelligence on the topic of this dossier
    We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it. I emphasized that this document is not a U.S. Intelligence Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions.

    https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/224-press-releases-2017/1469-dni-clapper-statement-on-conversation-with-president-elect-trump


  • #455
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    The stuff about his lawyer has been disproved (fbi confirm), it was apparently a guy with the same name. The question is if anything else in it has any substance. The media have apparently had this thing for months and have not been unable to verify anything so that would suggest there isn't.

    Time will tell I suppose.


  • #456
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    skankkuvhima wrote: »
    The latest from the Director of National Intelligence on the topic of this dossier



    https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/224-press-releases-2017/1469-dni-clapper-statement-on-conversation-with-president-elect-trump

    Essentially Trump has been slandering his own intellegence community by saying the leak came from them over this.

    We all know there is little proof of the elements in this document and no one has taken it as fact. This is just saying that there previous conclusions about Russian interference in the election were in no way dependent on this. So if this turns out not to be true it does not affect their previous conclusions.


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    skankkuvhima
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭skankkuvhima


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Essentially Trump has been slandering his own intellegence community by saying the leak came from them over this.

    We all know there is little proof of the elements in this document and no one has taken it as fact. This is just saying that there previous conclusions about Russian interference in the election were in no way dependent on this. So if this turns out not to be true it does not affect their previous conclusions.

    Jeez, ye lot are willing to twist anything.


  • #458
    HellSquirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭HellSquirrel


    "He didn't malign a man with a physical disability, he just treats everyone like that!"

    That's the level of defence you're working at. I can't think of any election before where the supporters of a candidate deliberately sought out the stills where he lets his jaw go slack, his face flab downwards, arms flapping and his eyes roll while slurring nonsense to argue that he treats everyone like that. He picks on physical vulnerabilities and focuses on them. Physicality is the most important thing to him. Why do you think he rates women's looks publically? Why do you think his go-to insults are "weak", "little" (also "lying", "overrated" and "failing"). So two physical, two reality-TV show bull****teries and one moral.

    So you're arguing, essentially, that the "brilliant" man with "the world's greatest memory, folks, everyone says so" either forgot about the physical disability of the man standing in front of him when he started foolishly flapping, or did it deliberately while lying about what the reporter had said -to his face-. And he did. I've read that article too.

    Ugh. Good gods. It is completely pathetic. Thing is, no matter how you deflect and bull****, the man is an idiot. Most of you can't even defend him and attempt to put the "blame" for him on "the left" (just, in general. Anyone who has left-wing views is automatically culpable). He is so indefensible that you can't even stand by your votes (where relevant). You are actually arguing that the people who voted for him are either idiots or -incredibly- easily lead by "the left". Which is it? Idiots or gullible? And it's not me saying it, it's you, every time you try to deflect the blame from his followers to those that oppose him.

    Free thinkers, my arse.


  • #459
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Essentially Trump has been slandering his own intellegence community by saying the leak came from them over this.

    We all know there is little proof of the elements in this document and no one has taken it as fact. This is just saying that there previous conclusions about Russian interference in the election were in no way dependent on this. So if this turns out not to be true it does not affect their previous conclusions.

    It was McCain who gave it to the FBI, whether than fits into any narrative who knows.


  • #460
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    HellSquirrel wrote: »
    "He didn't malign a man with a physical disability, he just treats everyone like that!"

    That's the level of defence you're working at. I can't think of any election before where the supporters of a candidate deliberately sought out the stills where he lets his jaw go slack, his face flab downwards, arms flapping and his eyes roll while slurring nonsense to argue that he treats everyone like that. He picks on physical vulnerabilities and focuses on them. Physicality is the most important thing to him. Why do you think he rates women's looks publically? Why do you think his go-to insults are "weak", "little" (also "lying", "overrated" and "failing"). So two physical, two reality-TV show bull****teries and one moral.

    So you're arguing, essentially, that the "brilliant" man with "the world's greatest memory, folks, everyone says so" either forgot about the physical disability of the man standing in front of him when he started foolishly flapping, or did it deliberately while lying about what the reporter had said -to his face-. And he did. I've read that article too.

    Ugh. Good gods. It is completely pathetic. Thing is, no matter how you deflect and bull****, the man is an idiot. Most of you can't even defend him and attempt to put the "blame" for him on "the left" (just, in general. Anyone who has left-wing views is automatically culpable). He is so indefensible that you can't even stand by your votes (where relevant). You are actually arguing that the people who voted for him are either idiots or -incredibly- easily lead by "the left". Which is it? Idiots or gullible? And it's not me saying it, it's you, every time you try to deflect the blame from his followers to those that oppose him.

    Free thinkers, my arse.

    Plenty of things out there to suggest otherwise.



  • #461
    HellSquirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭HellSquirrel


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    It was McCain who gave it to the FBI, whether than fits into any narrative who knows.

    Well, it fits into the narrative of what actually happened, shorn of any bull****. It is a matter of public record, unbalanced by any ideas of how to spin it, that John McCain gave a dossier to the FBI (that they already had).
    skankkuvhima wrote: »
    Jeez, ye lot are willing to twist anything.

    What did he twist? Where was the lie?
    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Plenty of things out there to suggest otherwise.
    Yes? He did a good thing once. He's done a few. That does not make him any more suited to lead a country, nor does it give the lie to anything he has done since. He is a petty, small, weak-minded individual. Just because he helped a child doesn't make him a good man, it merely makes him not an actual monster.

    I'm not even sure what you're trying to defend there. It doesn't address anything I said bar maybe the comments on his moral character, and it only barely addresses those. Are you indicating you otherwise agree with my assessment?


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    skankkuvhima wrote: »
    Jeez, ye lot are willing to twist anything.

    What did I twist. As soon as that briefing was over he declared he was going to start an investigation into how the media got some information and he kept it up. He would have been told how this information was aquired in the briefing (and that the media had it). He knew the material was not secure and still blamed his IC. He slandered them when he knew it was not their fault.

    My second paragraph was literally what the IC were saying. Their previous results are not dependent on this dossier. It was put out to tell people that disproving one does not disprove the other.


  • #463
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    HellSquirrel wrote: »


    Yes? He did a good thing once. He's done a few. That does not make him any more suited to lead a country, nor does it give the lie to anything he has done since. He is a petty, small, weak-minded individual. Just because he helped a child doesn't make him a good man, it merely makes him not an actual monster.

    I'm not even sure what you're trying to defend there. It doesn't address anything I said bar maybe the comments on his moral character, and it only barely addresses those. Are you indicating you otherwise agree with my assessment?

    That video goes completely against your rant about him about how he views people based on their looks/handicap. Trump has used those hand gestures in multiple speeches, believe what you want to believe.

    I don't think weak, small minded petty people becomes Billionaires, nevermind President.


  • #464
    Titzon Toast
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,570 ✭✭✭Titzon Toast


    8 years of his presidency OP yeah? I don't think so.


  • #465
    HellSquirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭HellSquirrel


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    That video goes completely against your rant about him about how he views people based on their looks/handicap. Trump has used those hand gestures in multiple speeches, believe what you want to believe.

    I don't think weak, small minded petty people becomes Billionaires, nevermind President.

    Wait, so because he's got money, he's automatically obviously above being weak, petty or small-minded? Well, it's a good thing decency is inherited along with the money.

    Uh, wait...

    That little girl was no threat to him and yes, it says something good about him that he was moved by her story. But I'm not just going on this one case. I'm looking at a pattern of how he behaves. And his behaviour has been frankly disgusting for the most part. Maybe it's all an act? Maybe so, but it's an act he's chosen to put on to the detriment of the country he claims to want to run. That he has the capacity to act like a human being is great, it'd just be nice if he'd goddam use it more often.


  • #466
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    So near the end of the press conference they dump this load of papers on the desk, somehow that should prove whatever they say but nobody was allowed to look at them :pac:

    edit: So he shouts down Acosta as 'fake press' and then takes a question from Breitbart :D


  • #467
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    HellSquirrel wrote: »
    Wait, so because he's got money, he's automatically obviously above being weak, petty or small-minded? Well, it's a good thing decency is inherited along with the money.

    Uh, wait...

    That little girl was no threat to him and yes, it says something good about him that he was moved by her story. But I'm not just going on this one case. I'm looking at a pattern of how he behaves. And his behaviour has been frankly disgusting for the most part. Maybe it's all an act? Maybe so, but it's an act he's chosen to put on to the detriment of the country he claims to want to run. That he has the capacity to act like a human being is great, it'd just be nice if he'd goddam use it more often.

    I wouldn't have associated any of the words you used describing him. Huge ego, womanizer, some dodgy business dealings, outspoken etc I could roll with. He's smarter than you give him credit for.

    There was something I read that went along the line of Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally, people against him take him literally but not seriously. I think there is some truth to that.

    If the Russia stuff turns out to be true he'll be nailed and who knows it might be, it's going to take something like that because this name calling critique of him by the left is only energizing his supporters further.


  • #468
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    That video goes completely against your rant about him about how he views people based on their looks/handicap. Trump has used those hand gestures in multiple speeches, believe what you want to believe.

    I don't think weak, small minded petty people becomes Billionaires, nevermind President.

    I like it. Rich people must be great. Go Soros!

    I also like the he always insults handicapped people line.


    On a more serious note at no point has Trump not attempted to allay people's fears about him. People here defend him but he never clarifies himself. His next move should be to assure people he believes in the freedom of the press and their right to critisize him. Based on his history I don't see it.

    In some ways that is partially why he uses twitter as opposed to say Facebook. Twitter limits the characters he can use so he can't give the full story. He doesn't clear anything up and his supporters can interpret the incomplete message in the best possible manner.


  • #469
    conorhal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,063 ✭✭✭conorhal


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    So near the end of the press conference they dump this load of papers on the desk, somehow that should prove whatever they say but nobody was allowed to look at them :pac:

    edit: So he shouts down Acosta as 'fake press' and then takes a question from Breitbart :D

    In fairness, now many questions did Obama take from Breitbart?


  • #470
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Christy42 wrote: »

    In some ways that is partially why he uses twitter as opposed to say Facebook. Twitter limits the characters he can use so he can't give the full story. He doesn't clear anything up and his supporters can interpret the incomplete message in the best possible manner.

    I'm split. Part of me feels like he owes the media nothing, and on the other side he has a duty to properly use the media to keep the Country informed. Clearly I'd side with the second option but I can understand his hesitation.

    Once he's sworn in I'd imagine his press conferences will be frequent, I don't expect the twitter use to dwindle though.


  • #471
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    conorhal wrote: »
    In fairness, now many questions did Obama take from Breitbart?

    Don't forget Vox :rolleyes:

    The times they are a changing. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    conorhal wrote: »
    In fairness, now many questions did Obama take from Breitbart?

    Why would he entertain them ? They are not credible at all and hate his guts.

    But apparently it's fine for the Trumpettes that the likes of Breitbart are now involved, but CNN should be ostracized because they are filthy mainstream media that lie :rolleyes:


  • #473
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Why would he entertain them ? They are not credible at all and hate his guts.

    But apparently it's fine for the Trumpettes that the likes of Breitbart are now involved, but CNN should be ostracized :rolleyes:

    No different than Vox having press access for Obama.

    CNN were colluding with HRC to get her elected, his dislike of them isn't unwarranted. That and they got the ball rolling on a supposed fake document that implies he got prostitutes to piss on a bed and his lawyer was working with the kremlin the night before.


  • #474
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,088 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    For a 1st Press conference in six months, and on the eve of his greatest accomplishment, that really was a disaster of a Press conference.

    Whatever you believe about him, whatever your take on the different allegations, here is a man about to take over control of the most powerful nation on Earth. A leader that not only can have a deep impact on the US, but the world as a whole.

    At no point has he shown any leadership, or ability to bring those that might disagree with him along with him.

    I would think, that only the most myopic of supporters can have watched that yesterday and come out feeling better about the next 4 years then before.


  • #475
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    No different than Vox having press access for Obama.

    CNN were colluding with HRC to get her elected, his dislike of them isn't unwarranted.

    Sorry, I don't do whataboutery.

    It's crystal clear why Obama wouldn't entertain Breitbart, they are not credible and completely biased.

    And who cares if he dislikes CNN, I'm sure Obama or Bush or Clinton or... also had websites and newspapers they disliked, they didn't single them out though as some child in a tantrum. Remember when Bush had a shoe thrown at him in Iraq ? He did away with that by saying the man has a right to protest him.

    Considering how Trump treats the media it's pretty funny he tweeted about Nazi Germany.

    edit: Doonesbury predicted that press conference I saw :D

    O6MjkSS.jpg


  • #476
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    I'm split. Part of me feels like he owes the media nothing, and on the other side he has a duty to properly use the media to keep the Country informed. Clearly I'd side with the second option but I can understand his hesitation.

    Once he's sworn in I'd imagine his press conferences will be frequent, I don't expect the twitter use to dwindle though.

    People keep saying he will change. I have yet to see it. His campaign should have been showing he was fit for the job. Ok maybe he played it odd for votes. But why keep it up after? I will believe it when I see it.

    I also worry about how much he is attacking anyone who critisizing him. He doesn't just defend himself. He attacks them (what was the point of calling Streep a bad actress? Just defend the comments she brought up). He always does it without fail. He goes on the attack. This ignoring cnn is only the latest incident and I worry that he is actively trying to shut down all who critisize him. Look at May. The bbc have hammered her over brexit and her response has been to defend brexit plans (badly in my point of view but that isn't the point). She has not declared them a fake news site. If a celebrity insults her she ignores it or defends a specific claim made about her. It is how a discussion with a world leader should go.

    I take May as an example of a world leader who I disagree with massively but still has my respect for at least knowing that disagreement is a healthy part of any democracy. And shows it.


  • #477
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,088 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    No different than Vox having press access for Obama.

    CNN were colluding with HRC to get her elected, his dislike of them isn't unwarranted. That and they got the ball rolling on a supposed fake document that implies he got prostitutes to piss on a bed and his lawyer was working with the kremlin the night before.

    They did not. That is clearly wrong. The media has known about it for months. The guardian knew about it last November.

    CNN did not publish the document, merely stated it existed and that IC had included it in the briefing.

    None of that is fake, made up, lies etc.

    Based on his treatment of CNN, Streep etc, it seems that anyone who took an active role in trying to get anybody but him elected is to be ostracised.

    This was a press conference that he called, on the eve of his greatest accomplishment. It should have been a nice relaxed event, his only issue trying to contain the smugness. Instead it turned into a car crash


  • #478
    dudara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    Trump can dislike and harangue the media all he wants, much as he can also favour certain media.

    But the simple fact is the First Amendment of the US constitution guarantees freedom of the press. The founding fathers intended the role of the press to be a mirror to politicans, a force to question and criticise on behalf of the regular citizen. Taken from Wikipedia...
    This clause is generally understood as a means to prevent the government from interfering with the distribution of information and opinions. Nevertheless, freedom of the press is subject to certain restrictions, such as the defamation law

    Trump can only curtail the media so far, before he starts infringing on their constitutional rights. He's a savvy enough person when he needs to be, so it is far more in his interest to develop a thicker skin and at least be civil with the media, particularly all the mainstream channels.


  • #479
    conorhal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,063 ✭✭✭conorhal


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Why would he entertain them ? They are not credible at all and hate his guts.

    But apparently it's fine for the Trumpettes that the likes of Breitbart are now involved, but CNN should be ostracized because they are filthy mainstream media that lie :rolleyes:

    Which differs from CNN's attitude to reporting on Trump how exactly? Would you entertain a 'media' organization that set out on a fake new smear campaign deliberately timed to cause maximum disruption to your inauguration? They're not better then Breitbart.


  • #480
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Sorry, I don't do whataboutery.

    Pretty telling you still won't accept the fact the MSM were working to get Hillary elected, it says alot about you.

    If you're going to post some image to disguise that I'll return the favor.

    Literally shaking.

    123.png


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    conorhal wrote: »
    Which differs from CNN's attitude to reporting on Trump how exactly? Would you entertain a 'media' organization that set out on a fake new smear campaign deliberately timed to cause maximum disruption to your inauguration? They're not better then Breitbart.
    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Pretty telling you still won't accept the fact the MSM were working to get Hillary elected, it says alot about you.

    Did you both not read the part where I said I won't do whataboutery ?
    You can cry all you want about CNN, doesn't change the fact Breitbart is **** and nowhere near comparable.

    Trying to even compare them is laughable but I understand why it's the tried and trusted tactic as it's the easiest way to avoid debate.

    Every criticism about Trump and his people (and yes, that includes Breitbart) is done away with 'BUT WHAT ABOUT...'


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement