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…3940424445…193

Comments

  • #1232
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,047 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Trump pondering evicting media corps from White House.

    Ah disdain for the media - right out of the dictator's text book.

    I'd have said covertly working with the media to win an election would be a bigger mark of a dictator but I'm just a stupid uninformed sexist racist so what do I know.


  • #1233
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'd have said covertly working with the media to win an election would be a bigger mark of a dictator but I'm just a stupid uninformed sexist racist so what do I know.

    Those emails exposing media collusion are fake and from Russian hackers though.


  • #1234
    mansize
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,521 ✭✭✭✭mansize


    Hail to the chimp more like... (I assume its been done)


  • #1235
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,047 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Those emails exposing media collusion are fake and from Russian hackers though.

    There was absolutely nothing damaging in those emails at all but they lost her the election because they were so damaging.


  • #1236
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Deleted User wrote: »
    There was absolutely nothing damaging in those emails at all but they lost her the election because they were so damaging.

    Wikileaks is fake news, correct the record super pac need to inform people about that.

    Anyone believing them is a Russian agent.


  • Advertisement
  • #1237
    gitzy16v
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,093 ✭✭✭gitzy16v


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Trump pondering evicting media corps from White House.

    Ah disdain for the media - right out of the dictator's text book.

    In fairness,
    would a dictator not just take control of the media,ban everything thats not positve for him.
    Your a bit ott.


  • #1238
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    There was absolutely nothing damaging in those emails at all but they lost her the election because they were so damaging.



    They weren't damaging in and of themselves.

    They were damaging cos the FBI made a big deal about it 2 days before Election Day.

    That guy comeney(sp?) has a whole lot to answer for


  • #1239
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    david75 wrote: »
    They weren't damaging in and of themselves.

    They were damaging cos the FBI made a big deal about it 2 days before Election Day.

    That guy comeney(sp?) has a whole lot to answer for

    It wasn't 2 days before the election day when the FBI reopened the email investigation, I think it was the 28th of October. That had nothing to do with the hacked emails but HRC running a unsecured email server containing top secret information in a mom and pop shop, then deleting over 30k emails after receiving a congressional subpoena.

    What sparked the second email investigation is they seen a collection on emails on Anthony Weiners laptop after he was being investigated for soliciting an underage girl on twitter. What probably sparked even more interest what that Huma Abedin ( His wife ) was a suspicious figure for the FBI. (FBI Themselves dumped what's underneath, not the Russian Hackers Wikileaks )

    fbiahuma.png


    His name is James Comey.

    You are wrong (again) .


  • #1240
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    It wasn't 2 days before the election day when the FBI reopened the email investigation. That had nothing to do with the hacked emails but HRC running a unsecured email server containing top secret information in a mom and pop shop, then deleting over 30k emails after receiving a congressional subpoena.

    What sparked the second email investigation is they seen a collection on emails on Anthony Weiners laptop after he was being investigated for soliciting an underage girl on twitter. What probably sparked even more interest what that Huma Abedin ( His wife ) was a suspicious figure for the FBI. (FBI Themselves dumped what's underneath, not the Russian Hackers Wikileaks )

    fbiahuma.png


    His name is James Comey.

    You are wrong (again) .



    Nothing like being right on the internet. Feel better?

    Trump collided with the FBI to take her down. Collusion. That word again.
    Wanna go right that wrong?


  • #1241
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,047 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    david75 wrote: »
    They weren't damaging in and of themselves.

    They were damaging cos the FBI made a big deal about it 2 days before Election Day.

    That guy comeney(sp?) has a whole lot to answer for

    Actually, there was damaging stuff in them but only people who didn't like her anyways read them.


    And something that would have stopped that from happening was not deleting 30k "personal emails" after failing to scrub either Obama's or her email address from the system after they were subpoenaed.

    Because she had all of those emails deleted, when 600k+ emails were found in a file called "life insurance" on Weiner's laptop, some from her, they needed to check their contents to make sure they weren't the deleted ones.

    It's her fault she was being investigated. It's her fault she deleted evidence and backups. It's why the FBI needed to check the emails. She got unlucky with the timing.


  • Advertisement
  • #1242
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    david75 wrote: »
    Nothing like being right on the internet. Feel better?

    Trump collided with the FBI to take her down. Collusion. That word again.
    Wanna go right that wrong?

    One thing I've learned is that you can't overcome delusion.


  • #1243
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Wish this guy worked for a number of services. Not least virgin media and three.

    24 hour answers to everything.


  • #1244
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,252 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=371ppiYpk1U


  • #1245
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,047 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    A great example of Trump getting attacked unfairly. Look at the author and the dates. The journalist deserves to be on the street for that but instead, continues to make gullible retards think Trump is a dictator before he even takes power.

    http://i.imgur.com/BZipR8ih.jpg//


  • #1246
    B_Wayne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    A great example of Trump getting attacked unfairly. Look at the author and the dates. The journalist deserves to be on the street for that but instead, continues to make gullible retards think Trump is a dictator before he even takes power.

    http://i.imgur.com/BZipR8ih.jpg//

    I view fashion pieces of any kind to be rather pointless. However I find it much more fascinating that you see nothing wrong with Trump wanting to ban the press from the Whitehouse. The basic point of that is to block Whitehouse politics from public consumption even if the public deserve to know. You just revert everything to "but Hillary"...


  • #1247
    HellSquirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭HellSquirrel


    :rolleyes: Good grief, is this still yesterday's tantrum? Oh well, I suppose we'll get back on track once you two have gotten the self-pitying duologue out of your systems.

    Really though, given the last couple of pages, going off the deep end was a little unnecessary. I can think of much more understandable places to go bat**** in this thread (by your side) other than being told what butyric acid is. A more reasonable argument would have been "Well, if it's that safe, why is the HMIS and NFPA blue triangle marked 3, which indicates danger?" to which I'd have said "Well, don't -eat- the stuff." And we could have debated that point because in truth, the 3 concerns me too, I would have expected a 2 from the wording and the EEC regulatory symbols. So it might have a higher likelihood of a negative effect on someone.

    Literally nobody supported the idiots, so stop acting like everyone whose disagreed with you in this thread are, en masse, cheering for them. It really is rather childish.


  • #1248
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1249
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,713 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    gitzy16v wrote: »
    In fairness,
    would a dictator not just take control of the media,ban everything thats not positve for him.
    Your a bit ott.

    Just a matter of time till he 'opens up' those libel laws and eviscerates the media. Can't have anyone out there impinging on the brand, yinno.

    At least these guys have the courage of their convictions: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-inauguration-boycott_us_5877ce0ee4b0c42cb1758e0c

    43 reps not attending by my count. Will see if any Republicans join 'em, unlikely.

    Plenty of precedent, too, tGOP reps didn't attend Obama's last inauguration.

    Too bad the Clintons and Bushes are attending, but it is traditional on the living ex-Presidents to be there.


  • #1250
    HellSquirrel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭HellSquirrel


    Deleted User wrote: »
    A great example of Trump getting attacked unfairly. Look at the author and the dates. The journalist deserves to be on the street for that but instead, continues to make gullible retards think Trump is a dictator before he even takes power.

    http://i.imgur.com/BZipR8ih.jpg//

    Wait, what? That doesn't even make sense, unless you're saying that fawning fashion pieces are evil. Actually, I'd be inclined to agree that they're daft. What they're wearing is about the least important thing of any of the nights. And yes, that person is very obviously anti-Trump and pro-Clinton. I can think of far more serious things to come down hard against other than some fashion writer drooling over a white pantsuit* and slating a white dress for her own ideas about what they represent though. I highly doubt Melania Trump was thinking "ooh, white power!" when picking that dress any more than I suspect Clinton was going for virginal.

    Unsure where the dictator bit comes in, unless you're talking about the points raised in the comment under Melania Trump. Eh. Yeah, his talking points were divisive, occasionally racist, misogynistic and idiotic. This is probably not reflected in her rather pretty dress. She's a very beautiful woman and while a bit feathery and floofy, it's a nice dress. Also didn't need bringing up in a fashion fluff piece. But really, I would be a bit more inclined to go after bigger fish than whoever wrote that nonsense.

    This is something that most of us might be able to get behind, apart from those that will see Jon Stewart and immediately object. But he makes some very good points about media becoming far too inclined to manufacture controversy on opinion programs and talk shows to fill up airtime. It's ten years old and sadly, even more relevant today than it was then.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE


    *Does it help at all that Clinton's power pants get slagged off too?


  • #1251
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    HellSquirrel wrote: »
    Okay, first off, you're talking about basically rancid butter. It's a component in a stink bomb, not a live bomb. And yes, it's a fatty chain acid released from decomposing dairy products. Now, if you shoved it up your nose, yes, it wouldn't do you any good (also don't eat it and don't smear it on your hands), but in a ventilation system, the worst it would do is stink the place out in terms of personal damage. The building would suffer a lot more, likely needing many of the soft furnishings replacing and the ventilation system scrubbed and possibly replaced.

    Highly unpleasant, but not particularly dangerous. Just to clear up the terrorism stuff :P

    Don't run away with that I agree with it, mind. Of course it's dumb, childish and a generally stupid notion come up with by fcukwits. But they're not trying to kill anyone.

    It falls under the definition of terrorism. May not kill people but I'd still consider it terrorism.


  • Advertisement
  • #1252
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'd have said covertly working with the media to win an election would be a bigger mark of a dictator but I'm just a stupid uninformed sexist racist so what do I know.

    How does that excuse Trump though? You seem to be missing the point. Hillary is in the past now. It doesn't matter what she did. It doesn't matter if the allegations were true or not. She's history. She may very well have been a very bad and corrupt president but her campaign is over. She lost.

    What matters is that it is very possible she lost because of the interference of Russia and that the current president elect of the USA may have been colluding with them. The fact that you can write that off with whataboutery is astonishing.


  • #1253
    conorhal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,063 ✭✭✭conorhal


    Igotadose wrote: »
    Just a matter of time till he 'opens up' those libel laws and eviscerates the media. Can't have anyone out there impinging on the brand, yinno.

    At least these guys have the courage of their convictions: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-inauguration-boycott_us_5877ce0ee4b0c42cb1758e0c

    43 reps not attending by my count. Will see if any Republicans join 'em, unlikely.

    Plenty of precedent, too, tGOP reps didn't attend Obama's last inauguration.

    Too bad the Clintons and Bushes are attending, but it is traditional on the living ex-Presidents to be there.

    It seems to me that the real danger of censorship isn't coming from the right.
    You have that little tech toad Zuckerberg working hard to ensure that you get your media only from 'approved sources'.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3981823.stm

    "German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over incendiary posts on the social network, Bloomberg reported on Sunday, amid complaints from her government about anti-immigrant posts in the midst of Europe's refugee crisis."

    The sudden hard on for fake news is little more than a cover for a power grab on the media. Not that I think it will work, there is the law of unintended consequences to consider.

    Now the liberal meda is wringing it's hands about 'The Guardian Effect' and how a campaign to get British readers to use their database to contact American voters in swing states may have had the opposite effect, merely pissing them off instead. Could the Guardian have elected Trump? Will the establishment shift their focus from the pernicious foreign influence of Russia to other foreign players attempting to effect the outcome of the democratic process?


  • #1254
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    So, propaganda = good, verifiable information = bad?


  • #1255
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    One thing I've learned is that you can't overcome delusion.


    Looks like Hank just experienced a brief moment of clarity.


  • #1256
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    I can't believe you're actually discussing a Project Veritas video as if it is worthy of serious consideration...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WDWLeRKc2Y

    These guys turned the tables on them by secretly recording them offering money to their political group to disrupt the inauguration.


  • #1257
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,713 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    conorhal wrote: »
    It seems to me that the real danger of censorship isn't coming from the right.
    You have that little tech toad Zuckerberg working hard to ensure that you get your media only from 'approved sources'.

    People get their media from Facebook? Wow.

    It's nice to have a forum like this one, where libel laws aren't a threat.


  • #1258
    Trent Houseboat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,116 ✭✭✭Trent Houseboat


    conorhal wrote: »

    The sudden hard on for fake news is little more than a cover for a power grab on the media. Not that I think it will work, there is the law of unintended consequences to consider.
    I think the sudden hard on is because most people are shocked at how credulous many people were in actually buying it. Fake news has been around for a long time, people just yard to ignore it not use it to affirm their already held beliefs. I won't expect a reply as you're probably off looking for the sexy singles in your area.


  • #1259
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    This is less of a political issue and more of a human behaviour issue, letting your bias completely control your opinions is common in all humans, in all walks of life and happens on a daily basis to all of us.

    It's a simple case of confirmation bias, the reporter is looking for positives for Hillary and negatives for Ivana and then you use the reporter's bias as a way of confirming your own bias that all democrats (which don't even exist in this country) are liars and cheats.


    The underlying current in social interaction today seems to be negativity. We see it in American politics but in our own too. FG will never ever say FF had a good idea and visa versa, they've made the main focus of their political organisations to oppose the other parties over doing their actual jobs. The unfortunate thing is us general public are more than willing to jump on the negativity bandwagon and leave common sense and empathy at home.


  • #1260
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Some unverifiable reports on the net are saying that a video of Trump using the N word is going to be released before the inauguration. Meant to be an outtake from the apprentice.

    Might be bs, but there have been other reports on this tape for months now.


  • Advertisement
  • #1261
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,833 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Some unverifiable reports on the net are saying that a video of Trump using the N word is going to be released before the inauguration. Meant to be an outtake from the apprentice.

    Might be bs, but there have been other reports on this tape for months now.

    There was someone who was a contestant that said that he constantly used racial and sexual insults. And I seem to remember hearing of the tape. It's supposed to be like a blooper reel of outtakes that had been shared amongst former employees. Apparently it wasn't released because everyone was scared of being sued.

    Having said all that I have no idea if it exists. I'm just repeating rumours.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement