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…107108110112113…193

Comments

  • #3272
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    BBDBB wrote: »
    That's pretty much what I think will happen, he will be given enough rope to hang himself and in the meantime undo the last eight years. To be frank, they probably have enough on him already to see him out of office, they are just waiting for the right time to release it.
    They can't hang him out to dry while he still has he's loyal fans. He should piss off all those people pretty rapidly when he breaks all his promises, then the republicans can really throw him under the bus and they'll end up being thanked for it.


  • #3273
    red ears
    Closed Accounts Posts: 945 ✭✭✭red ears


    super_furry wrote: »
    Dan Rather wrote this on Facebook and I think he has an excellent point. Reporters and the media need to double down and apply real pressure on the White House now.

    The one big line for me is - "If you are interviewing a Paul Ryan, a Mitch McConnell, or any other GOP elected official, the first question must be "what will you do to combat the lying from the White House?"

    "These are not normal times. These are extraordinary times. And extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

    When you have a spokesperson for the president of the United States wrap up a lie in the Orwellian phrase "alternative facts”…

    When you have a press secretary in his first appearance before the White House reporters threaten, bully, lie, and then walk out of the briefing room without the cajones to answer a single question…

    When you have a President stand before the stars of the fallen CIA agents and boast about the size of his crowds (lies) and how great his authoritarian inaugural speech was….

    These are not normal times.

    The press has never seen anything like this before. The public has never seen anything like this before. And the political leaders of both parties have never seen anything like this before.

    What can we do? We can all step up and say simply and without equivocation. "A lie, is a lie, is a lie!" And if someone won't say it, those of us who know that there is such a thing as the truth must do whatever is in our power to diminish the liar's malignant reach into our society.

    There is one group of people who can do a lot - very quickly. And that is Republicans in Congress. Without their support, Donald Trump's presidency will falter. So here is what I think everyone in the press must do. If you are interviewing a Paul Ryan, a Mitch McConnell, or any other GOP elected official, the first question must be "what will you do to combat the lying from the White House?" If they dodge and weave, keep with the follow ups. And if they refuse to give a satisfactory answer, end the interview.

    Facts and the truth are not partisan. They are the bedrock of our democracy. And you are either with them, with us, with our Constitution, our history, and the future of our nation, or you are against it. Everyone must answer that question."

    There is no use the press getting all holier than thou now. They created this culture of lying, exaggerating and spinning of news. Seriously, anyone who has been reading news for the past 10 or 15 years has seen it. Especially since online news became such a big thing with the clickbait articles etc. They can't be trusted to tell the truth. The truth doesn't matter to them most of the time. People became tired of being interviewed by media who will cherry pick, miss-quote and outright lie to suit their own narrative or to create an exciting headline. Now some people are fighting back. Trump is one of them.


  • #3274
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    red ears wrote: »
    There is no use the press getting all holier than thou now. They created this culture of lying, exaggerating and spinning of news. Seriously, anyone who has been reading news for the past 10 or 15 years has seen it. Especially since online news became such a big thing with the clickbait articles etc. They can't be trusted to tell the truth. The truth doesn't matter to them most of the time. People became tired of being interviewed by media who will cherry pick, miss-quote and outright lie to suit their own narrative or to create an exciting headline. Now some people are fighting back. Trump is one of them.
    Except the citizen/consumer is completely ignoring the part they played in creating that style of media. We followed the click bait style, we bought the papers with the pun based front pages. We have to realise how we spend our money is as important as how we vote. We direct companies on a daily basis with our spending.

    The reason the media turned into sensationalised mess that it is today is because we kept rewarding them every time they took a step in that direction. These are companies that want to make money, so they researched us and gave us what we want.

    We are all just as responsible as anybody and I don't see that we've learned that lesson at all. We're still just pointing fingers at everyone but ourselves.


  • #3275
    dub_skav
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭dub_skav


    velo.2010 wrote: »
    We are all just as responsible as anybody and I don't see that we've learned that lesson at all. We're still just pointing fingers at everyone but ourselves.

    Maybe you are :D


  • #3276
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    The media colluded to get one Candidate elected. The heads of those media outlets had private dinners with one campaign to strategize on how to achieve that. They allowed the campaign to edit newspaper articles, write questions for interviews with opponents and leak questions for debates. Any credibility they had got shattered when it got exposed. They should have apologized when the election ended to wipe the slate clean but instead doubled down.

    That's before you get into the polls and the Trump 5% chance to win garbage. They have no credibility anymore.


  • Advertisement
  • #3277
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    The media colluded to get one Candidate elected. The heads of those media outlets had private dinners with one campaign to strategize on how to achieve that. They allowed the campaign to edit newspaper articles, write questions for interviews with opponents and leak questions for debates. Any credibility they had got shattered when it got exposed. They should have apologized when the election ended to wipe the slate clean but instead doubled down.

    That's before you get into the polls and the Trump 5% chance to win garbage.

    I hope you can cite some proper proof of this Hank that hasn't come off the back of a Bacofoil package?


  • #3278
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    The heads of those media outlets had private dinners with one campaign to strategize on how to achieve that.
    It would be odd for businesses to collude with their competition. Most media outlets are looking for exclusivity, they would lose that ability and put their sales down to random luck by colluding with each other.

    write questions for interviews with opponents
    That doesn't really seem all that surprising. Opponents would know what questions to ask and I think most interviews come with a list of questions they want asked or not asked or they won't do the interview. That's common even with celebrity interviews.


  • #3279
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Here's some examples @ Gandalf
    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Trump questions for CNN Wolf Blitzer https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/22673
    CNN looking for questions on Ted Cruz https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23554
    Clinton Staff hosts private “off-the-record cocktail party” with 38 “influential” reporters, journalists, editors, and anchors (from 16 different mainstream media outlets including CNN, NBC, CBS, NYT, MSNBC, & more) with the stated goal of “framing the race”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5953 (see attachment)
    John Podesta hosts a dinner with reporters: I’m “Cooking for 30 of your reporter friends”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4543#efmAAGABu Full list of media guests: https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12063
    Donna Brazile (CNN contributor at the time, and current DNC Chairman now) leaked a CNN town hall question to Hillary’s staff: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205#efmAD-AMa
    Fox News leaked Town Hall question to Clinton campaign: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/21526#efmAJiAOE
    Hillary Clinton reads directly from script during Phone Interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4274#efmAEcAWc Video: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786158412119707648
    Clinton campaign and the New York Times coordinating attack strategy against Trump: https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4664
    New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich gives Hillary veto power: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDV1DWd
    Glen Thrush, POLITICO's chief political correspondent and senior staff writer for POLITICO Magazine, sends John Podesta an article for his approval. Writes: "Please don't share or tell anyone I did this. Tell me if I ****ed up anything": https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681#efmAByAEV
    Boston Globe colludes with Clinton campaign to give Hillary a “big presence”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4180#efmAJhALE
    John Podesta receiving drafts of New York Times articles before they’re published: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844
    Ad for Hillary Clinton secretly pitched by ‘right-leaning’ Heat Street ‘journalist’ Louise Mensch: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5740#efmAMvAUe
    More media collusion: NYT and AP “helpful” to Clinton campaign: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5502
    Brent Budowsky (writer for The Hill and Huffington Post) warns John Podesta about possible Hillary attacks and that not talking to the press is killing her support: “I’m not going to raise this publicly, but..”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6453#efmARBAUVAVJAXBAfNAhWAkaAl4
    Huffington Post contributor Frank Islam writes to John Podesta in email titled “My blogs in the Huffington Post”, says “I am committed to make sure she is elected the next president.” “Please let me know if I can be of any service to you”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5988#efmADmAE6AF-AG1
    Clinton staff “Placing a story” with Politico / New York Times: “place a story with a friendly journalist” “we have a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico” “we should shape likely leaks in the best light for HRC”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7524#efmA14A2IA3AA36A9fA-kA-6BAICwpCx4
    Clinton staff “placing a story with a friendly at the AP (Matt Lee or Bradley Klapper)”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272#efmBKsBMU
    MSNBC's Meet The Press host and Political Director for NBC News, Chuck Todd, hosted a dinner party in 2015 for Clinton Campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/13686
    Leading pro-Hillary personalities Jessica Valenti, Jamil Smith, and Sady Doyle "worked with" the campaign: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18566
    Clinton staff appearing to control the release times of Associated Press articles: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8460
    Clinton staff colluding with New York Times and Wall Street Journal to paint Hillary’s economic policies in a “progressive” light: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9007#efmAcTAdS
    CNBC panelist colluding with John Podesta on what to ask Trump when he calls in for an interview: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7710#efmAakAd6AjgAlR
    CAMPAIGN STRATEGY / CONCERNS


  • #3280
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Ah so all from Putinleaks......


  • #3281
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    gandalf wrote: »
    Ah so all from Putinleaks......

    Tbf, they're chasing after Trump's tax returns now.


  • Advertisement
  • #3282
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    gandalf wrote: »
    Ah so all from Putinleaks......

    Sorry that reality doesn't suit your agenda.


  • #3283
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Tbf, they're chasing after Trump's tax returns now.

    Whats the odds that they are either

    a) Finding out who's willing to leak them

    or

    b) Getting hold of them so they can say 'nah nothing here worth looking at'


  • #3284
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Tbf, they're chasing after Trump's tax returns now.

    I'll believe that when we see them.

    TBH all I see listed there is what they call schmoozing and the Trump campaign would have had similar contacts with the media as well. FFS is that the smoking gun. Pathetic.


  • #3285
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Sorry that reality doesn't suit your agenda.

    Breaking News: The very YUUUUUGEST, BIGLYIEST pot in the world just called the kettle black.

    :pac:


  • #3286
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    The media colluded to get one Candidate elected.

    You're 100% correct.

    The disproportionate amount of time devoted to Hillarys emails, coupled with a refusal to call Trump out on pathological lying, it all added up to collusion to get Trump elected.

    Trump, like him or hate him, is good for media in terms of ratings and sales.

    Hillary, despite her many flaws, would have been a fairly steady-as-she-goes President not embroiled in too many controversial things.

    Flip this around, if Hillary won there is not a hope in hell her pick for Education would stand in front of Congress and refuse to say "guns have no place in schools". Her pick for Energy would know what the Department actually does. Her pick for Secretary of State would not have received a medal from Putin. Her pick for Housing might have the faintest notion of what it involves. Her picks for Environment might actually believe in overwhelming climate science.

    In short, there wouldn't have been a whole lot of drama.

    Instead the media went after Hillary and got Trump in.

    Remember when Donald Trump stood up there and invited Russia to hack emails? Remember when Trump stood there and cited Wikileaks incessantly? Not to mention many unsubstantiated stuff?

    The media didn't check him.

    Yet you have a raw intel dossier floating around from a respected MI6 Agent (Christopher Steele) and nobody had the guts to run with it.

    They ran with all Trumps unsubstantiated BS but not anything that'd benefit Hillary.

    The media got what they wanted. Trump will help ratings, viewerships and sales and provide constant drama.

    This narrative you're pushing of the media trying to elect Hillary is more "alternative facts" and frankly you live in an alternate reality.


  • #3287
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Tbf, they're chasing after Trump's tax returns now.

    If you haven't published them for twenty years, then it would be a good idea to keep the FBI and the CIA on board and say or do nothing to piss them off.


  • #3288
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    gandalf wrote: »
    I'll believe that when we see them.

    TBH all I see listed there is what they call schmoozing and the Trump campaign would have had similar contacts with the media as well. FFS is that the smoking gun. Pathetic.

    Why were people fired so?


  • #3289
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,713 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Butters1979 wrote: »
    Countering illegal immigration, vetting potentially dangerous people before entering the country and taking the p*** out of journalists? Good. I'm ok with that.



    Maybe he is so sure of himself he genuinely believes he can do it. That's not lying, that's just been wrong. And the last administration didn't do well in this area.
    Anyway if he at least helps reduce it, is that not a good thing, or is it all or nothing for you?

    MrMooka(?) - is that another of your accounts? - said that it watched Trump's speech and found nothing objectionable.

    Here are some things others might find objectionable.
    The '2d amendment people might help out here' when he encouraged his opponent's assasination. Encouraging Russia to steal e-mail
    Repealing Roe V. Wade- very objectionable.


    His economic plans (the bulwark of his speeches) are objectionable, because they're not plans, just hyperbole.



    And on and on.

    But let me simplify this for you: I point out some things that I believe to be objectionable.

    You don't
    Ergo, they're not objectionable? Is that your point? And anything Trump says, is by your definition, not objectionable?

    Or do you want to control who can and cannot object to something a public figure says?


  • #3290
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    gandalf wrote: »
    Ah so all from Putinleaks......

    To be fair here gandalf (I never thought I'd type that sentence), it was very obvious during the campaign process that certain new networks were totally backing Clinton, even against Sanders.

    Was it not shown that a CNN reporter leaked questions to Clinton before a debate and was promptly fired by the network.

    But then, complaining that the MSM so obviously backed Clinton is a bit redundant when so many media outlets backed Trump, and in previous elections backed their preferred nominee, but sadly, I think Hank is more than happy to overlook that.


  • #3291
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Yes I'm sure the media helped Trump win by telling the public day in day out he had no chance to win.

    CNN even asked his son live on air on the morning of the election when are they going to concede.


  • Advertisement
  • #3292
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Here's some examples @ Gandalf
    I don't really see anything conclusive there. All I see are invitations, requests, PR wrangling. There's no confirmation that anything came of any of these requests and a lot of it seems like fact checking against the competition.

    I can send an email to the Irish times asking them to say only positive things about me and only negative things about my opposition but it doesn't mean it's going to happen.

    Trump brought the media on himself with his ridiculous statements. Nobody needed to encourage the media, all they had to do was focus on what trump was saying.


  • #3293
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Yes I'm sure the media helped Trump win by telling the public day in day out he had no chance to win.

    If you're a Hillary supporter and the media is constantly saying she's going to win and the polls look good, you might be more likely to stay at home voting day.

    "Ah sure she'll be grand she has a big lead and the house is a mess, I need to hoover".

    If you're a Trump supporter, it made you more determined to get out and vote.

    "Ah he'll probably lose but if we all get out and vote, who knows".


    You're not very good at logic are you? In fact, your posts are an endless stream of rabble to try defend the indefensible. I presume you're a fan of InfoWars and Breitbart yeah?


  • #3294
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    To be fair here gandalf (I never thought I'd type that sentence), it was very obvious during the campaign process that certain new networks were totally backing Clinton, even against Sanders.

    Was it not shown that a CNN reporter leaked questions to Clinton before a debate and was promptly fired by the network.

    But then, complaining that the MSM so obviously backed Clinton is a bit redundant when so many media outlets backed Trump, and in previous elections backed their preferred nominee, but sadly, I think Hank is more than happy to overlook that.

    I am not denying there is media bias of course there is media bias there always has been and there always will be. But to assert that it is a grand conspiracy as Hank is suggesting is ludicrous. I am sure that for every CNN there is a Foxnews for Trump and definitely RT ;)

    As said earlier journalists will promise the earth moon and stars to get an exclusive copy even as far as allowing the campaigns editorial over their articles. There is no way that similar schmoozing didn't occur with the Trump camp and journalists as well. Unfortunately we don't have the contents of their email server to trawl through to cross check.


  • #3295
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    If you're a Hillary supporter and the media is constantly saying she's going to win and the polls look good, you might be more likely to stay at home voting day.

    "Ah sure she'll be grand she has a big lead and the house is a mess, I need to hoover".

    If you're a Trump supporter, it made you more determined to get out and vote.

    "Ah he'll probably lose but if we all get out and vote, who knows".


    You're not very good at logic are you? In fact, your posts are an endless stream of rabble to try defend the indefensible. I presume you're a fan of InfoWars and Breitbart yeah?

    No, you'll just spin the narrative whichever way you want to suit your agenda.

    He asked for proof of collusion and I posted it. Suck it up sunshine, no need for the personal insults.


  • #3296
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Ask for proof of media collusion and why they've lost a lot of credibility, get the reply "buu Putinlinks". Standard stuff around these here parts.
    That's not proof though. It's fragments of conversations that have no real context. You don't have a chain of events that shows actual conclusion.

    You're reading far to much into things and jumping to conclusions basically.

    Pretty much every word in a newspaper is bought and paid for, outside of actual news any time a person or company is mentioned in a positive light that person or institution has paid for those words.

    Even magazines like which, that do product reviews. You can't get your product into that magazine without paying for it like it's an ad.

    It's not like Trump is above making friends in a media, just look at his lap pet Alex Jones.


  • #3297
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    No, you'll just spin the narrative whichever way you want to suit your agenda.

    He asked for proof of collusion and I posted it. Suck it up sunshine, no need for the personal insults.

    That's exactly what you've been doing all thread.

    Sunshine beats snowflake I guess.


  • #3298
    Butters1979
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Butters1979


    Igotadose wrote: »
    MrMooka(?) - is that another of your accounts? - said that it watched Trump's speech and found nothing objectionable.

    Nor did I, what's your problem with that? You found stuff objectional, my point was not everyone agrees with that.

    Igotadose wrote: »


    Or do you want to control who can and cannot object to something a public figure says?

    So you can have your opinions, but MrMooka and I can't?

    And what's this 'other account' crap?


  • #3299
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    ScumLord wrote: »
    That's not proof though. It's fragments of conversations that have no real context. You don't have a chain of events that shows actual conclusion.

    You're reading far to much into things and jumping to conclusions basically.

    Pretty much every word in a newspaper is bought and paid for, outside of actual news any time a person or company is mentioned in a positive light that person or institution has paid for those words.

    Even magazines like which, that do product reviews. You can't get your product into that magazine without paying for it like it's an ad.

    It's not like Trump is above making friends in a media, just look at his lap pet Alex Jones.

    If it's all conspiracy, as you say, why were multiple DNC staffers forced to resign?

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/02/democratic-national-committee-ceo-resigns-dacey/87960580/

    Why was Donna Brazille fired from CNN?

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/31/donna-brazile-fired-cnn-contributor/

    Why did the head of the DNC have to resign after cheating Sanders?

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders


  • #3300
    Il Fascista
    Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭Il Fascista


    Didn't Politico send a draft of an article to the Clinton camp before it was published also?


  • Advertisement
  • #3301
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Il Fascista wrote: »
    Didn't Politico send a draft of an article to the Clinton camp before it was published also?

    They were all at it, but according to people here it's normal and you must be a conspiracy theorist.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement