The biased Media vs Trump!

ancapailldorcha

Posts deleted. No more link dumping and sniping please.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Christy42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sorry did not mean to suggest you were. Race is a better predictor. That is why they divide up groups by ethnicity and only divide whites up by college education.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

Eh no - it's you who referenced "the evidence that more college educated white males voted for Trump".

Eh, I did not initally reference it at all, you are very confused or confusing me with a different poster. Re-read the thread again.

alastair wrote: »

Trump - the peace candidate that advocated for torture, the murder of families, of 'bombing the **** out of them', and 'taking their oil'? Best of luck with that pitch to the Nobel Institute. :rolleyes:

You can roll your eyes all you want but I find it fascinating that here we have a Republican president elect who wants closer relations to Russia, less interventionist policies in the Middle East and wants to pursue an isolationist agenda, FDR style pre Pearl Harbour, yet still people are not happy. This is the lefts dream 101. How often have we had the argument that the US should stop interfering international in the affairs of other states by the likes of the left. Now we have this rhetoric by Trump but its ignored because he belongs to the wrong party.

If this was a Democrat the usual regressive left would be creaming themselves and he would have gotten a Nobel Peace prize before inauguration ala Obama.

Tell me, how is the Middle East now after 8 years of Obama? Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya. All peaceful and democratic I suppose. Never mind his unilateral indiscriminate use of drone strikes. Obama has authorised 10 times, yes 10 TIMES the amount of Drones strikes than Bush did.

Hillary 'I voted to invade Iraq' Clinton would have been even more hawkish than 'do nothing and watch the Middle East burn' Obama.

So, yes I stand by my assertion that Trump is the peace candidate here out of the two.

Manach

Well having read how minor incidents in war away places can escalate out of all proportion (currently reading a few books on the origins of WWI) then any one like Trump is at least attempting to deescalate the tensions with Russia. He (for the moment) is not seeking to impose lines in the sand (such as unilaterally imposed no fly zones) which would the Russians are under no obligation to observed. Then at least in that respect, Trump was the better peace candidate.

B0jangles

Remember how important Clinton's email server was and it was totally illegal and treasonous to potentially transmit classified material over unsecured networks?

Trump is reportedly having freeform, unplanned 'chats' with a wide variety of world leaders with no guidance from the State Department and over unsecured phonelines. Trump has already received secuity briefings so is privy to classified information which would likely relate to international relations - matters likely to come up in such nice friendly chats.

LOCK HIM UP!

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/17/australias-prime-minister-could-only-reach-donald-trump-by-getting-his-unsecured-cell-phone-number-from-a-golfing-buddy/

FA Hayek

This fact is 'conveniently' forgotten by the press. The about face on this matter is actually galling. If Trump was going on about no fly zones in Syria you can imagine the howls and shrieks of protest from the usual professional protestors and the establishment mainstream media.

Saint Hillary on the other hand can do no wrong,
No fly zones? Not a bother, fixing the DNC nomination? Water under the bridge. Missing classified emails? Where is my flat white and Gluten Free muffin.
Trump said something mean... 'Release the hounds of war'

FA Hayek

B0jangles wrote: »

Remember how important Clinton's email server was and it was totally illegal and treasonous to potentially transmit classified material over unsecured networks?

Trump is reportedly having freeform, unplanned 'chats' with a wide variety of world leaders with no guidance from the State Department and over unsecured phonelines. Trump has already received secuity briefings so is privy to classified information which would likely relate to international relations - matters likely to come up in such nice friendly chats.

LOCK HIM UP!

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/17/australias-prime-minister-could-only-reach-donald-trump-by-getting-his-unsecured-cell-phone-number-from-a-golfing-buddy/

More tosh. The article in question does not mention the State Department so you are putting your own opinion into another opinion piece. Can we call this an opinion piece sandwich, which masquerades as 'news'?

Trump is not yet president, so has no actual powers of state yet, that remains with Obama.

Lastly, there is no evidence or proof that Trump and Turnbull talked about anything classified. Like Trump talked to Enda Kenny last week, what the hell would they have talked about that would be Top Secret, in that context. It would have the usual formalities of congratulations on the election result, hope we can work together, please visit us soon, I look forward to building a good relationship,etc, etc etc.. I really doubt they would have been formulating a devious plan to thwart Iran or China.

We had this talk as well with Obama 8 years ago. People just gave out about literally everything. He could not tie his shoelaces right, or put his jacket on correctly. Most of these were cranks. I see the cranks are coming out of the wood work again in relation to Trump. I never knew there were so many though.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

Eh, I did not initally reference it at all, you are very confused or confusing me with a different poster. Re-read the thread again.

Eh, I never said you 'initially' referenced it, I said you referenced it, as you did. Perhaps it's you who needs to revisit three thread?

FA Hayek wrote: »

You can roll your eyes all you want but I find it fascinating that here we have a Republican president elect who wants closer relations to Russia, less interventionist policies in the Middle East and wants to pursue an isolationist agenda, FDR style pre Pearl Harbour, yet still people are not happy. This is the lefts dream 101. How often have we had the argument that the US should stop interfering international in the affairs of other states by the likes of the left. Now we have this rhetoric by Trump but its ignored because he belongs to the wrong party.

If this was a Democrat the usual regressive left would be creaming themselves and he would have gotten a Nobel Peace prize before inauguration ala Obama.

Tell me, how is the Middle East now after 8 years of Obama? Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya. All peaceful and democratic I suppose. Never mind his unilateral indiscriminate use of drone strikes. Obama has authorised 10 times, yes 10 TIMES the amount of Drones strikes than Bush did.

Hillary 'I voted to invade Iraq' Clinton would have been even more hawkish than 'do nothing and watch the Middle East burn' Obama.

So, yes I stand by my assertion that Trump is the peace candidate here out of the two.

Of course you're quite entitled to hold any opinion, even if it's at odds with the facts. But you're not going to spin your way out of the reality that this is a candidate that articulated positions that would have any objective observer running for The Hague. Not any sort of peacemaking going to come from that platform, and I'm pretty sure FDR would roll in his grave if he was being equated with that kind of idiocy. And what are 'unilateral' drone strikes supposed to be?

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

Eh, I never said you 'initially' referenced it, I said you referenced it, as you did. Perhaps it's you who needs to revisit three thread?

This is tedious. I reference it after your good self referenced it. Yes, this is tedious...

alastair wrote: »

Of course you're quite entitled to hold any opinion, even if it's at odds with the facts. But you're not going to spin your way out of the reality that this is a candidate that articulated positions that would have any objective observer running for The Hague. Not any sort of peacemaking going to come from that platform, and I'm pretty sure FDR would roll in his grave if he was being equated with that kind of idiocy. And what are 'unilateral' drone strikes supposed to be?

The same FDR that interned the Japanese for WWII? Oh, there are many skeletons in that closet. Do you want me to talk about FDR's view on race? Go on, I dare you....

The facts are laid out. Hillary wants the US to impose itself on the Middle East, something the regressive left have for years been railing again.
Trump wants to form a more isolationist stance, in direct contravention against the neo-cons, who the left hate.... yet here Trump is the warmonger. Tell me what 'facts' I am missing here.

Anti-war + stimulus spending = should be the lefts wet dream.
if the exact same words were said by someone else, they would be applauded by yourself.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

This is tedious. I reference it after your good self referenced it. Yes, this is tedious...

What's tedious is your repeated attempts to wriggle out of the undermined claim you made. Permabear initially made the claim on the majority of white male graduates (you thanked the post). I pointed out that no majority voted for anyone. You then (here) re-asserted this claim, and then I pointed out that the same data had a majority of graduate voters opting for Hillary. So no, it's your reference. You'll have to own it, however tedious you find that.

FA Hayek wrote: »

The same FDR that interned the Japanese for WWII? Oh, there are many skeletons in that closet. Do you want me to talk about FDR's view on race? Go on, I dare you....

The facts are laid out. Hillary wants the US to impose itself on the Middle East, something the regressive left have for years been railing again.
Trump wants to form a more isolationist stance, in direct contravention against the neo-cons, who the left hate.... yet here Trump is the warmonger. Tell me what 'facts' I am missing here.

Anti-war + stimulus spending = should be the lefts wet dream.
if the exact same words were said by someone else, they would be applauded by yourself.

The facts your missing are the facts you're choosing to ignore - Trump advocating for torture, the murder of families of combatants, "bombing the **** out of them" and "taking their oil". Sounds pretty 'interventionist' to me. You're defending the indefensible.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/lets-stop-calling-donald-trump-a-noninterventionist.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421825/donald-trump-foreign-policy-middle-east-oil

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

What's tedious is your repeated attempts to wriggle out of the undermined claim you made. Permabear initially made the claim on the majority of white male graduates (you thanked the post). I pointed out that no majority voted for anyone. You then (here) re-asserted this claim, and then I pointed out that the same data had a majority of graduate voters opting for Hillary. So no, it's your reference. You'll have to own it, however tedious you find that.

Yes, tedious alright. Again, never made the initial claim. You love being tedious about an exit poll that in all actuality is wrong given the election result. I can understand in some way why you persist to bang on about it, as to be honest its the only thing you can claw onto. Such is the empty hole in your general argument. Hence why this is about the 10th post in a row where you go on about it. Its all you got..

alastair wrote: »

The facts your missing are the facts you're choosing to ignore - Trump advocating for torture, the murder of families of combatants, "bombing the **** out of them" and "taking their oil". Sounds pretty 'interventionist' to me. You're defending the indefensible.

Great cliche at the end of that. Defending the indefensible. Which would be true, if I actually defended those actual remarks, which I didn't but you know that again, its the only thing you got. See, the problem we see at the moment are people from the left and establishemnt take Trump literally, but not seriously. While now more people are starting to realise that you don't take him literally but have to take him seriously.

I also find it fascinating that you have not defended Hillary 'I voted for war in Iraq' Clinton. Again, shows that you can't even bring yourself to mention her and her hawkish rhetoric that is more like the Bush neo-cons. Funny that. Hey, lets talk about Trump instead and forget her sabre rattling with Russians.

Also, noticed you ran away from discussing FDR. Thought as much.

So, whats the next line of argument, repeat a third time the same empty boring claim or are we going to bring up the locker room comments. Its going to be a loooonnng 4 years for you guys.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

Yes, tedious alright. Again, never made the initial claim. You love being tedious about an exit poll that in all actuality is wrong given the election result. I can understand in some way why you persist to bang on about it, as to be honest its the only thing you can claw onto. Such is the empty hole in your general argument. Hence why this is about the 10th post in a row where you go on about it. Its all you got..

Once again - never said it was 'initially' your claim. In fact I was very clear it wasn't, last time you tried this distraction. But you seemingly can't take ownership of your own posts. Keep dissembling.

FA Hayek wrote: »

Great cliche at the end of that. Defending the indefensible. Which would be true, if I actually defended those actual remarks, which I didn't but you know that again, its the only thing you got. See, the problem we see at the moment are people from the left and establishemnt take Trump literally, but not seriously. While now more people are starting to realise that you don't take him literally but have to take him seriously.

I also find it fascinating that you have not defended Hillary 'I voted for war in Iraq' Clinton. Again, shows that you can't even bring yourself to mention her and her hawkish rhetoric that is more like the Bush neo-cons. Funny that. Hey, lets talk about Trump instead and forget her sabre rattling with Russians.

Also, noticed you ran away from discussing FDR. Thought as much.

So, whats the next line of argument, repeat a third time the same empty boring claim or are we going to bring up the locker room comments. Its going to be a loooonnng 4 years for you guys.

Nah, you didn't defend the quotes, but instead ignored them, because they rather undermine this silly notion of Trump as some banner of non-intervention. Trump is the indefensible here, not just those quotes. No interest in getting distracted by FDR, cheers, Trump is no FDR, you can run along with that guff.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

Once again - never said it was 'initially' your claim. In fact I was very clear it wasn't, last time you tried this distraction. But you seemingly can't take ownership of your own posts. Keep dissembling.

This would be about the 11th time. Getting tedious yet?

alastair wrote: »

Nah, you didn't defend the quotes, but instead ignored them, because they rather undermine this silly notion of Trump as some banner of non-intervention. Trump is the indefensible here, not just those quotes. No interest in getting distracted by FDR, cheers, Trump is no FDR, you can run along with that guff.

As I said, I do not take him literally. If you take everything every politician says literally in a campaign than more fool you.

E.g. How is Guantanamo Bay doing lately?

Trump is without question the peace candidate here out of the two. The American people are tried of being used by the rest of the western world as their police man. It is no wonder Merkel looked so glum last week, she is going to have to actually fund her army properly and not rely on the american tax payer to protect them in future.

Its OK to run away from FDR, as its a wise decision on your part
Its also wise to yet again ignore Hilary 'I voted for war with Iraq' Clinton. Disappointing but wise.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

This would be about the 11th time. Getting tedious yet?

Ready to admit that it's you who referenced the cherry-picked claim yet?

FA Hayek wrote: »

As I said, I do not take him literally. If you take everything every politician says literally in a campaign than more fool you.

E.g. How is Guantanamo Bay doing lately?

Trump is without question the peace candidate here out of the two. The American people are tried of being used by the rest of the western world as their police man. It is no wonder Merkel looked so glum last week, she is going to have to actually fund her army properly and not rely on the american tax payer to protect them in future.

Its OK to run away from FDR, as its a wise decision on your part
Its also wise to yet again ignore Hilary 'I voted for war with Iraq' Clinton. Disappointing but wise.

I thought he wasn't a politician? I certainly take his pronouncements as serious statements, and if he's contradictory at the same time, I factor that into how credible he is on all fronts. He's a loose cannon, and has made statements that undermine any possibility of his being taken seriously as a, ahem, 'peace candidate'. The American people voted for the other candidate in greater numbers. Maybe you should keep that in mind, when you go making assumptions on their part?

Overheal

FA Hayek wrote: »

I also find it fascinating that you have not defended Hillary 'I voted for war in Iraq' Clinton.

Did she win the election when we weren't looking?

Two points of fact: nobody defended her during the election, therefore she lost; having lost the election, we stand at a pivot where it is completely reasonable to be critical of the President Elect.

If your card to play is "But Hillary," at this point, well..

E.g. How is Guantanamo Bay doing lately?

The prison camp that the president wanted gone, spent 8 years trying to get it gone, and the congress fought him every inch of the way and ultimately won that fight? We know how it went. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

Trump is without question the peace candidate here out of the two.

There is no longer any merit in comparing him to Hillary Clinton. On his own, the President Elect is no peace candidate.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

On his own, the President Elect is no peace candidate.

Sure he is. In just over a week since winning the election Donald Trump has done more for peace and security than eight years of Barack Obama. And Obama got a Nobel Piece Prize for what, exactly? Since Trump got elected Canada’s prime minister said he’s willing to renegotiate NAFTA. Mexico’s president Enrique Pena Nieto expressed a willingness to negotiate with The Donald. Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe is coming for a meeting with Trump and will most probably search for common ground on security as the Trans-Pacific Partnership is now dead. And with Russia, Putin respects strength and is willing to explore common interests with Moscow. Don’t you think Trump already deserves a Nobel Peace Prize?

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

.And with Russia, Putin respects strength and is willing to explore common interests with Moscow.

How, precisely, do you believe Trump has demonstrated strength to Putin? The man hasn't had the backbone to stick to any single policy line in his campaigning, and his position regarding Putin seems to consist primarily of kowtowing. I'm curious as to what manner of delusion reads any of that as 'strength'?

I don't see any Nobel nominations in Trump's future.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Sure he is. In just over a week since winning the election Donald Trump has done more for peace and security than eight years of Barack Obama. And Obama got a Nobel Piece Prize for what, exactly? Since Trump got elected Canada’s prime minister said he’s willing to renegotiate NAFTA. Mexico’s president Enrique Pena Nieto expressed a willingness to negotiate with The Donald. Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe is coming for a meeting with Trump and will most probably search for common ground on security as the Trans-Pacific Partnership is now dead. And with Russia, Putin respects strength and is willing to explore common interests with Moscow. Don’t you think Trump already deserves a Nobel Peace Prize?

For wanting to expand torture, targeting civilians and carpet bombing foreign countries? Think not.

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

For wanting to expand torture, targeting civilians and carpet bombing foreign countries? Think not.

Back by popular demand. Governing is different to campaigning so we will see what he will actually do. I'd say a fair few people want go after those Jihadists and Drug Cartels also in Mexico.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Back by popular demand.

On what measure? Trump lags behind his opposition, so it certainly isn't expressed in his mandate.

recedite

I predict that within 6 months of Trump taking office, the Syrian civil war will be over, EU sanctions against Russia will be lifted and new EU/Russia cooperation and trade deals will be signed, Islamic State will be gone, the Mexican cartels will be cannibalising each other, Julian Assange will be out enjoying the sunshine, a good proportion of US troops will be home with their families, and The Donald will be getting on well with everybody that matters.
Freedom and Peace. No prizes, but this time in a more meaningful way

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

On what measure? Trump lags behind his opposition, so it certainly isn't expressed in his mandate.

Trump won the battleground states and took areas that were Obama and Sanders supporting Democratic regions of the country. He got his message out there to the country and the voters rewarded him in the ballot box. While he was traversing the country the numbers at the rallies are impressive. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/numbers-trump-averages-6400-campaign-events-hillary-averages-400-including-paid-staffers/

It tells an alarming picture and taking off my Trump goggles it points to an electorate deeply unhappy with Washington decision making and a desire to shake up the place. A zero tolerance approach to dealing with International terrorism is favoured amongst huge numbers of Americans.

B0jangles

According to Argentinian reporters, Trump used his congrats call from the Argentinian president to ask him get a building permit for him in Buenos Aires.

Over the weekend, there were a flurry of stories about how Donald Trump and his family are already using the presidency to leverage his overseas businesses as well as his new DC hotel. Well, now there's more. This time in Argentina.

Here's the background.

For a number of years, Trump and his Argentine partners have been trying to build a major office building in Buenos Aires. The project has been held up by a series of complications tied to financing, importation of building materials and various permitting requirements.

According to a report out of Argentina, when Argentine President Mauricio Macri called President-Elect Trump to congratulate him on his election, Trump asked Macri to deal with the permitting issues that are currently holding up the project.

This comes from one of Argentina's most prominent journalists, Jorge Lanata, in a recent TV appearance. Lanata is quoted here in La Nacion, one of Argentina's most prestigious dailies. Said Lanata: “Macri called him. This still hasn’t emerged but Trump asked for them to authorize a building he’s constructing in Buenos Aires, it wasn’t just a geopolitical chat."

Not even President yet and already abusing the office for personal gain.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/cashing-in-bigly-in-argentina

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1958082-revelan-que-trump-le-pidio-permiso-a-macri-para-hacer-una-torre

FA Hayek

Overheal wrote: »

Did she win the election when we weren't looking?

Two points of fact: nobody defended her during the election, therefore she lost; having lost the election, we stand at a pivot where it is completely reasonable to be critical of the President Elect.

If your card to play is "But Hillary," at this point, well..

Fair enough, but if you play that card, the you also have to give Trump a chance and the benefit of the doubt. He has not even been inaugurated yet and people have written him off. Cant have your cake and eat it.

Overheal wrote: »

The prison camp that the president wanted gone, spent 8 years trying to get it gone, and the congress fought him every inch of the way and ultimately won that fight? We know how it went. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

You mean politicians break campaign promises? :eek::eek:
Stop the press.

Overheal wrote: »

There is no longer any merit in comparing him to Hillary Clinton. On his own, the President Elect is no peace candidate.

That is why I said he was the peace 'candidate'.

FA Hayek

Amerika wrote: »

Sure he is. In just over a week since winning the election Donald Trump has done more for peace and security than eight years of Barack Obama. And Obama got a Nobel Piece Prize for what, exactly? Since Trump got elected Canada’s prime minister said he’s willing to renegotiate NAFTA. Mexico’s president Enrique Pena Nieto expressed a willingness to negotiate with The Donald. Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe is coming for a meeting with Trump and will most probably search for common ground on security as the Trans-Pacific Partnership is now dead. And with Russia, Putin respects strength and is willing to explore common interests with Moscow. Don’t you think Trump already deserves a Nobel Peace Prize?

This always puzzled me. Obama got the Nobel peace prize for giving nice campaign speeches and doing nothing in regards foreign policy. It really damaged the institution in my opinion.

Reagan signed multiple Nuclear non-proliferation treaties with the USSR. Bill Clinton came within inches of achieving a historic Israel-Palestine deal. FDR stood up for western democracy in the face of authoritarianism.
They all ended up empty handed, yet Obama got one after a few months of taking office where he achieve nothing of note. Bizarre virtue singling in my opinion.

oscarBravo

FA Hayek wrote: »

He has not even been inaugurated yet and people have written him off.

The level of corruption and nepotism he's displaying before he's even sworn in negates any suggestion that he should be given any benefit of the doubt. It's actually quite breathtaking just how blatant he's being.

Overheal

There's a difference between given him a chance and giving him an inch

InTheTrees

FA Hayek wrote: »

Fair enough, but if you play that card, the you also have to give Trump a chance and the benefit of the doubt. He has not even been inaugurated yet and people have written him off.

"Have to" give him a chance?

No.

I believe the first protests are scheduled for the day after the inauguration. The same thing happened with George w bush. You lose the popular vote and you'll never be allowed to forget it.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump won the battleground states and took areas that were Obama and Sanders supporting Democratic regions of the country. He got his message out there to the country and the voters rewarded him in the ballot box. While he was traversing the country the numbers at the rallies are impressive. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/numbers-trump-averages-6400-campaign-events-hillary-averages-400-including-paid-staffers/

It tells an alarming picture and taking off my Trump goggles it points to an electorate deeply unhappy with Washington decision making and a desire to shake up the place. A zero tolerance approach to dealing with International terrorism is favoured amongst huge numbers of Americans.

You do get that he got fewer votes than his opponent?