nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 3.0

Zzippy

All things non-rugby related here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

CatFromHue

I haven't really followed this but how exactly where the Russians meant to have helped Trump?

Unless the Russians were involved in getting Clinton to run for the other side I'm not sure how much they could have done that would have made much of a difference

irishbucsfan

CatFromHue wrote: »

I haven't really followed this but how exactly where the Russians meant to have helped Trump?

Unless the Russians were involved in getting Clinton to run for the other side I'm not sure how much they could have done that would have made much of a difference

The article isn't so long:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/

bilston

CatFromHue wrote: »

I haven't really followed this but how exactly where the Russians meant to have helped Trump?

Unless the Russians were involved in getting Clinton to run for the other side I'm not sure how much they could have done that would have made much of a difference

Well the timing of some of the email leaks certainly damaged Clinton. Remember the FBI announced they were going investigate Clinton a week before the election. That hurt her badly.

CMOTDibbler

CatFromHue wrote: »

I haven't really followed this but how exactly where the Russians meant to have helped Trump?

Unless the Russians were involved in getting Clinton to run for the other side I'm not sure how much they could have done that would have made much of a difference

They're tied to the hacking of the DNC emails and WikiLeaks.

Bazzo

CatFromHue wrote: »

I haven't really followed this but how exactly where the Russians meant to have helped Trump?

Unless the Russians were involved in getting Clinton to run for the other side I'm not sure how much they could have done that would have made much of a difference

Basically Russian hackers were behind all the damaging leaks of Hillary Clinton's e-mails. The CIA has also said that after a full investigation they've concluded that both the DNC and GOP were compromised but only e-mails damaging to the DNC were released, leading them to conclude that it was a direct attempt at influencing the election.

Bazzo

bilston wrote: »

Well the timing of some of the email leaks certainly damaged Clinton. Remember the FBI announced they were going investigate Clinton a week before the election. That hurt her badly.

And then a few days later said that they'd concluded that investigation and hadn't found anything. That particular announcement was extremely suspect.

irishbucsfan

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

They're tied to the hacking of the DNC emails and WikiLeaks.

Speaking of that, Julian Assange embarrassed himself yesterday. Admitted that they didn't publish information about the RNC before the election, despite the fact he criticised the Panama Papers because they didn't release all of their information. He's become a dangerous individual.

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Speaking of that, Julian Assange embarrassed himself yesterday. Admitted that they didn't publish information about the RNC before the election, despite the fact he criticised the Panama Papers because they didn't release all of their information. He's become a dangerous individual.

He was always an incipient anarchist.

Zzippy

Bazzo wrote: »

And then a few days later said that they'd concluded that investigation and hadn't found anything. That particular announcement was extremely suspect.

Corey then said last week when questioned in committee whether the FBI was investigating Trump ties to Russia that he could not comment, yet he had no problem doing do a week before the election about Clinton. Knows what side his bread is buttered on...

awec

Is it snowing for anyone?

I am seeing pictures of snow in Dublin, but it's dry as a bone here?

CMOTDibbler

awec wrote: »

Is it snowing for anyone?

I am seeing pictures of snow in Dublin, but it's dry as a bone here?

Snow falling alright, but nothing sticking yet except on high ground in Wicklow.

awec

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Snow falling alright, but nothing sticking yet except on high ground in Wicklow.

The Mirror has this picture, the left hand side is Stepaside apparently (I can't really tell whereabouts in Stepaside).

I live literally 5 minutes from Stepaside, not a bit of snow.

I'm confused.

wp_rathead

Hailshtones out wesht

molloyjh

So Fox News have come out against Trump for his response to CNN yesterday. They basically said that CNN followed proper journalistic standards and no reporter should ever be belittled like that by the President elect. That's no small thing at all...

Bazzo

awec wrote: »

Is it snowing for anyone?

I am seeing pictures of snow in Dublin, but it's dry as a bone here?

It's going back and forth between snow and rain in the north if England. I'd rather it just snowed..

sydthebeat

molloyjh wrote: »

So Fox News have come out against Trump for his response to CNN yesterday. They basically said that CNN followed proper journalistic standards and no reporter should ever be belittled like that by the President elect. That's no small thing at all...

its going to be an eventful presidency if he continues with both the main steam media and the intelligent services against him for the next 4 years

wp_rathead

molloyjh wrote: »

So Fox News have come out against Trump for his response to CNN yesterday. They basically said that CNN followed proper journalistic standards and no reporter should ever be belittled like that by the President elect. That's no small thing at all...

Shep Smith to be branded a "cuck" in 3,2,1..

CMOTDibbler

sydthebeat wrote: »

its going to be an eventful presidency if he continues with both the main steam media and the intelligent services against him for the next 4 years

Is that not a bit of a stretch?

I'd leave the main steam media out of it. It's too hot a topic.

Buer

molloyjh wrote: »

So Fox News have come out against Trump for his response to CNN yesterday. They basically said that CNN followed proper journalistic standards and no reporter should ever be belittled like that by the President elect. That's no small thing at all...

CNN's report was fair game. Buzzfeed were the ones who provided the lascivious details on the matter and turned it into the circus.

CMOTDibbler

Buer wrote: »

CNN's report was fair game. Buzzfeed were the ones who provided the lascivious details on the matter and turned it into the circus.

I thought Buzzfeed published the entire dossier? Not just the salacious stuff.

Whether they should have published anything is another matter. Everyone in teh media and the security services knew about it and were talking about it. A lot of attempts were made to try and substantiate it, but they failed.

There's a wider question of journalistic ethics. Don't publish without substantiation has always been the standard. The likes of WikiLeaks have blurred that boundary I think.

irishbucsfan

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I thought Buzzfeed published the entire dossier? Not just the salacious stuff.

Whether they should have published anything is another matter. Everyone in teh media and the security services knew about it and were talking about it. A lot of attempts were made to try and substantiate it, but they failed.

There's a wider question of journalistic ethics. Don't publish without substantiation has always been the standard. The likes of WikiLeaks have blurred that boundary I think.

You're right, Buzzfeed just published the dossier instead of waiting to try and substantiate it. Not great practice really.

Unfortunately it gave Trump enough ammo to point at a CNN journalist, refuse to take his question and call him "Fake News" and instead take a question from a Breitbart hack.

Bazzo

Fox defending CNN is huge. I find it hilariously ironic that Donald ****ing Trump is losing his **** over unsubstantiated rumours being spread about him.

bilston

Can anyone tell me what the argument against Obamacare is? I just keep hearing from Republicans that is bad for America, but then I read that 20m more Americans can now afford health insurance and I'm genuinely left scratching my head wondering why this is a bad thing.

Buer

Bazzo wrote: »

Fox defending CNN is huge. I find it hilariously ironic that Donald ****ing Trump is losing his **** over unsubstantiated rumours being spread about him.

It was put to him yesterday in the press conference that he spread unsubstantiated rumours throughout his campaign in relation to his opponent. He wouldn't answer aside from something along the lines of "It's sad when intelligence is leaked" and moved on.

awec

bilston wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the argument against Obamacare is? I just keep hearing from Republicans that is bad for America, but then I read that 20m more Americans can now afford health insurance and I'm genuinely left scratching my head wondering why this is a bad thing.

People who can afford to pay for health insurance have their premiums increased a bit in order to cover those who cannot afford it.

irishbucsfan

bilston wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the argument against Obamacare is? I just keep hearing from Republicans that is bad for America, but then I read that 20m more Americans can now afford health insurance and I'm genuinely left scratching my head wondering why this is a bad thing.

Well it's not good for the insurance industry who have to insure people they wouldn't have in the past.

As for why there is so much public disdain for it? Well I'd imagine it has a lot to do with the Republican's masterful play of calling it 'Obamacare' instead of its real name the "Affordable Care Act".

CMOTDibbler

bilston wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the argument against Obamacare is? I just keep hearing from Republicans that is bad for America, but then I read that 20m more Americans can now afford health insurance and I'm genuinely left scratching my head wondering why this is a bad thing.

Well there's this kind of misunderstanding (to put it very mildly)

display?key=fd92ebbc52fc43fb98f69e50e7893c13&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redditmedia.com%2Frw3nPEObaPGkAKhh5fautFXXjxGqkz5IiWXH1DaVcJw.png%3Fs%3D553313d55bf4d679093fbeb2880c0226

Bazzo

bilston wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the argument against Obamacare is? I just keep hearing from Republicans that is bad for America, but then I read that 20m more Americans can now afford health insurance and I'm genuinely left scratching my head wondering why this is a bad thing.

For a lot of low-mid income Americans Obamacare has significantly increased the cost of their health insurance. Of course the Obamacare of today is nothing like what was originally envisioned. The Republican congress fought Obama on it every step of the way and the programme ended up being a gutted weak compromise because of that. Which means the Republicans who are largely responsible for its failings can point at it and say "See! We were right!"

Buer

bilston wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the argument against Obamacare is? I just keep hearing from Republicans that is bad for America, but then I read that 20m more Americans can now afford health insurance and I'm genuinely left scratching my head wondering why this is a bad thing.

With the poorer elements of society now being provided with healthcare, someone has to foot the bill. Taxes have increased for the wealthier.The cost of private insurance has risen too. There's a knock on impact on the health system too. If there are going to be 20m additional people now able to afford healthcare, is the infrastructure in place to cope with those numbers?

I'm not hugely versed on the situation but it did strike me as a touch of running before being able to walk. It's a massive change to a fundamental element of society and was always going to be extremely controversial.

[Deleted User]

bilston wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the argument against Obamacare is? I just keep hearing from Republicans that is bad for America, but then I read that 20m more Americans can now afford health insurance and I'm genuinely left scratching my head wondering why this is a bad thing.

It's not bad. Nearly every other first world country has it. For it to have worked well though it needed a state run insurer that would have pulled premiums back. Obamacare passed but this aspect of it didn't so while people got insurance (because insurers could no longer prejudice) they just hiked the prices and made it unpopular for people who already had insurance.

The reason by the way that the state run insurer wasn't included was because republicans blocked it.

So Obamacare is a good thing, but without creating competition in a market that runs like a cartel the cost for existing policy holders went up.

It will go back to the way it was or they will bring in a new act that was what the original affordable care act was meant to be. Having a state run business though that acts as a competitor to reduce the profits of other corporations wouldn't fit the republican ideology so it's hard to know.

I try to see both sides of things and be fair and critical in my thinking of things, but the Republicans really are a despicable and fairly hateful crowd.