Donald Trump and US politics
" A weak attempt at influencing politics from the outside. That's what the media (or rather its owners) is all about. That's why they run entire agendas against politicians who they disagree with. It's basically lobbying, but worse. GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
|
|
" This is classic Clinton Rules Reporting. Notice, buried deep within the story: In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added. And he's right. Unless you think (for no good reason) that Clinton was putting pressure on multiple agencies, this whole story makes no fucking sense. Luna's Blackguards - a guild of bronies - is now recruiting! If you're a fan of our favourite chromatic marshmallow equines, hit me up with an add or whisper, and I'll invite you!
IGN: HopeYouAreFireProof |
|
|
@Budget: Of the various Trump "scandals," the Venn diagram intersection of "real scandal" and "significant coverage" was Flynn lying to Pence.
In the intersection of "fake news" and "significant coverage:" The russophobia is straight-up neo-McCarthyism, and there have been many stories about Russia: this new Sessions thing, the pissy dossier, claims of Russia hacking DNC, claims of Russia hacking Podesta. The attacks on Breitbart and Bannon; the former is no worse than FOX News and the latter isn't an anti-Semite. The rampant and underserved accusations of racism, misogyny and homophobia in general (the Obama transgender policy basically made all restrooms unisex, with the sign as mere suggestion). The blatant misinterpreting of the immigration EO as religious discrimination. Etc. In the category of "legit WTF" and "media doesn't give a fuck:" Trump advocacy for torture of enemy combatants and revival of CIA black sites. The EO on immigration — but for entirely different reasons than those usually reported (due process for current visa holders). Trump backing down on campaign promises to audit the Federal Reserve and prosecute Clinton. How Trump intends to fund the giant list of projects mentioned in speech to Congress. Suggestions to further increase military spending, implying further feeding of the military-industrial complex. Probably a few more buried under the noise of hysteria. There's legitimate stuff to protest Trump about. But I don't see most people even aware of these things, and instead parroting a stream of lies and irrelevancies. People are being propagandized by both left and right, failing to address important issues. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
|
" Oh my God, is such a big scheme that even Obama is involved!!! What was his job on all that? Obama was a double agent? Campaigning to Hillary, but also working with the Russians to hack the DNC? And the sanctions he put on Russia, was that some kind of trap? Americans would lower their guard thinking that the Russians have been dealt with, and then out of nowhere BANG!!! Putin ridding a bear while drinking vodka strikes you!!! - For real now, do you even understand why people are making such a ruckus about Sessions? It just makes no sense at all to defend Sessions saying that Obama also met with the "boogeyman Russian ambassador". Maybe sessions didn't collude with russians or anything, maybe his lie under oath wasn't intentional, and you don't have to look far to find plausible arguments to defend him. But saying "Obama also met with the russian" show that you don't know what the discussion is about, or that you want to spread confusion. I'm not the most well informed guy around, but maybe I can fill you in on what the democrats are thinking. They think Trump is colluding with Russia, they think that Trump's policies being "friendly" to Russia is no coincidence. When it was announced that the Intel community suspected(or was certain, whatever) that Russia had hacked the DNC President Obama put sanctions on Russia (my timeline might be slight off, but who cares), they say that the same day Gen. Flynn contacted the russian embassy, they think he promised that Trump would lift those sanctions, because in the next day Putin announced that he would not put sanctions on the US. Are the democrats right about that? Who knows. It's because the above mentioned that they want to investigate the Trump Campaign and Russia ties. And why they are after Sessions? If he had said that he met with Russian officials that would cast suspicion on him, but it is not an automatic crime or anything, it's only a crime if it's proven that they were colluding to win the campaign. But when he was under oath he said he didn't meet, which isn't true. From here you can draw your own conclusions, I might be slight off on some things, but I think that this is the rhetoric that is going around. Now, do you realize why bringing Obama to this discussion makes no sense? Oh, and before anyone bring republican talking points, I don't really care you know. Until there is solid proof that Trump is colluding with Russia I refrain from arguing about uncertain things. My personal opinion is that I think all of this is suspicious af, but not enough to send people to jail. Last edited by soneka101#4659 on Mar 3, 2017, 4:22:49 AM
|
|
" The AG committing perjury by his own standards is not "fake news". Intelligence agencies briefing the outgoing and incoming presidents on said dossier is not "fake news". Complaints about Breitbart and Bannon are not "fake news"; Bannon has no right whatsoever to a seat on the NSC and many people are absolutely justified in their concerns that a person with his stated goals is in a position of power. The idea that Breitbart is no worse than FOX is more than a little ridiculous; say what you will about FOX's track record on honesty, at least they don't have an entire segment dedicated to "Black Crime". None of the shit on this list is fake news. None of it. Unless you want to claim that the intelligence agencies which have come out and stated that Russia was behind the DNC and Podesta hacks are just lying, and even then it would hardly be proper for the news media to ignore it based on those spurious allegations. But that's not what I was talking about. What I'm asking for is the good news that we're missing. Luna's Blackguards - a guild of bronies - is now recruiting! If you're a fan of our favourite chromatic marshmallow equines, hit me up with an add or whisper, and I'll invite you!
IGN: HopeYouAreFireProof |
|
"It certainly is fake news. I've listened to him explain it isn't perjury. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
|
" Obama was President, just as Sessions was a Senator. I don't know or think that Obama did anything wrong by meeting with him, just as I don't think Sessions did anything wrong for the very same reasons. My post wasn't to say Obama did something wrong, but to show how appearances can be twisted to fit a narrative if people want to do that. The purview of the Senate is foreign policy. Had Sessions not been a Senator, and just a civilian member of Trump's campaign staff, then I would question why he was meeting with a Russian official. I was showing how absurd the left's claims about Sessions look to someone who isn't obsessed with getting Trump out of office. " They don't think that at all. Their "sources" don't have corroborating details of any kind. Considering the traitors still in place in the intelligence community, if there was any proof, we'd be seeing some concrete details, just as details of Trump's conversations with other nation's leaders was leaked. " They are after him because they know he will efficiently carry out the law. We know they already don't like the law - sanctuary cities are a perfect example - and Obama didn't enforce those laws. They know Sessions won't back down if and when some of their own leaders or money suppliers are indicted. The only person they fear as an AG more than Sessions would be Gowdy. This has nothing to do with integrity, or oaths or perjury. The media and democrats didn't call for Obama's AG Eric Holder to step down when he was held in contempt for perjury to Congress. They didn't care about Hillary's lies or all the pleading the fifth amendment during the email debacle. They didn't care about what really happened in Benghazi. The people that worked alongside Sessions in the Senate for years know his character and know he didn't suddenly change character and become corrupt and evil, anymore than Santa Claus would suddenly turn into the Grinch. Look at how long they delayed to confirm Ben Carson. Look at their outrage toward confirming Trump's supreme court nominee when NOT A SINGLE ONE objected to him in 2006. It is all partisanship, nothing more. "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 Last edited by DalaiLama#6738 on Mar 3, 2017, 5:52:10 AM
|
|
" The president can decide to seat someone on the NSC because he likes their freckles. There are certain members required, but the rest serve at the sole discretion of the president. Barack could have put his brother Malik Obama on the NSC if he wanted. " Everyone has a right to their feelings. Some people feel ketchup should never ever be on a hot dog. That doesn't mean it is a national law or international crisis. People are absolutely justified in their concerns that putting ketchup on a hot dog is going to ruin America's reputation. And here we have the Russian ambassador at Trump's speech sitting with Sessions - oh wait, he's sitting with the democrats! I wonder if Putin knows he's been double crossed?  "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 Last edited by DalaiLama#6738 on Mar 3, 2017, 5:56:06 AM
|
|
|
Thank God there is some reality in life like Poe oh and tf I am not American.
|
|
" Lol, of course the one committing it would claim it isnt perjury. This is like a criminal saying it isnt a crime to rob a bank. |
|
