President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

If she had acted impartially, she'd still be in her job now. Fox News cannot afford to be fronted by a person in dispute with the POTUS for the whole of his term of office, while rival news corporations are first in line for all the interviews and scoops.

Fox have have never been impartial. They always favour the republican side but you already know that.

Did you see the bill o Reilly interview with Obama? He kept talking over Obama like any other guest. Rewind to president bush interview and o Reilly announced to the viewer beforehand that the interview shows the appropriate respect to the presidency by not challenging or interrupting.

Do you mean they have to make hay while there's a republican in office?

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you mean they have to make hay while there's a republican in office?

Not exactly, no.
The nearest comparison I can think of is the spat between Enda Kenny and Vincent Browne, which AFAIK goes back to some comment he made about the living dead, and Enda decided it was about suicide. Whatever the origin of the dispute, its bad for business.

The fact is, a lot of people felt free to diss the Donald early on, because they firmly believed he had no chance of becoming the Republican nominee, let alone the POTUS. For some, that has proved to be a costly mistake.

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

The fact is, a lot of people felt free to diss the Donald early on, because they firmly believed he had no chance of becoming the Republican nominee, let alone the POTUS. For some, that has proved to be a costly mistake.

The main thing she did was she covered the story about trump's first wife's sworn statement that he raped her. Donald rang her and told her not to do stories like that again, o Reilly wasn't doing it etc. She told him he didn't have editorial control of her show and he went nuts. She says he told her to watch herself because he 'hasnt unleashed his beautiful Twitter account on her YET. But I still might'. Then came the famous debate question about the things he said about women. Trump did unleash his Twitter account on her and she was under daily death/rape threats for about 9 months.

Do you mean she didn't lick trump's boots like hannity did?

Overheal

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Fox have have never been impartial. They always favour the republican side but you already know that.

Did you see the bill o Reilly interview with Obama? He kept talking over Obama like any other guest. Rewind to president bush interview and o Reilly announced to the viewer beforehand that the interview shows the appropriate respect to the presidency by not challenging or interrupting.

Do you mean they have to make hay while there's a republican in office?

"Now, interviewing a President is *not* like interviewing *anyone else on the planet* [emphasis his]. You can not be confrontational with the POTUS, you can be direct but you can't be disrespectful."

Let's see how he did

And how he responded to criticism when he proved to be a hypocrite

El_Duderino 09

Overheal wrote:

"Now, interviewing a President is *not* like interviewing *anyone else on the planet* [emphasis his]. You can not be confrontational with the POTUS, you can be direct but you can't be disrespectful."

Classic. With bush he says there's no point looking backwards so we're talking about the future. BTW, isn't the future looking great?

With Obama the first question was along the lines of 'so ya made a balls of the Obama care website. What's up with that, huh?'

Overheal

And he still gets pissy if you call him a Republican.

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The main thing she did was she covered the story about trump's first wife's sworn statement that he raped her.

Not very appropriate, if neither Ivana nor Donald wanted it aired, and anyway AFAIK Ivana never claimed that consent was withheld, saying instead it was not a "literal" rape.
There are reasons people like Donald Trump and Julian Assange have been branded as rapists, but they have nothing to do with rape.

KingBrian2

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yes.

It is usual that the there is public confidence in the new president elect.

Not with trump. He lost the peoples vote by a huge amount and he's showing quite clearly with his words that he's not interested in unifying the country. But this is the "change" his supporters wanted right? He's "telling it like it is" no doubt.

The media and politicians in Washington & New York share this role in causing the disruption to everyone's lives. Trump is not responsible for every troll or dumbass who wants to make a name for themselves. The calls for war, immigration control and wiping out terrorists across the world came from various quarters. The hackers for Trump community had their very own reasons for wanting Trump in office and they have pieces all across the internet that express their hostility for all the policies of the Democratic party.

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

Not very appropriate, if neither Ivana nor Donald wanted it aired, and anyway AFAIK Ivana never claimed that consent was withheld, saying instead it was not a "literal" rape. There are reasons people like Donald Trump and Julian Assange have been branded as rapists, but they have nothing to do with rape.

Since when did the subject of a news story have to consent to it being aired?

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Since when did the subject of a news story have to consent to it being aired?

More a "malicious gossip" story.

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

More a "malicious gossip" story.

Oh I see

recedite

You're welcome.

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

You're welcome.

I didn't thank you for that guff

Amerika

Do I have this right? As a result of Trump’s win, President Obama, the Democrats and the mainstream media all claim Russia hacked the DNC server to swing the election in Trump’s favor. Yet the FBI never requested access to the DNC servers, nor has any other government agency run an independent forensic analysis on the system, and instead relied on a report from a private vendor (Crowdstrike) to conclude that it was the Russians? And now based on the claims from our government’s intelligence ‘experts’ President Obama, in retaliation, has sent special forces to the Russian border to strike back against Putin’s aggression?

Billy86

Must be a pain to see it done and concluded privately so as not to be able to whinge about 'biased government institutions' alright.

recedite

Amerika wrote: »

President Obama, in retaliation, has sent special forces to the Russian border to strike back against Putin’s aggression?

Seems so. Its not exactly new though. All the stoking of cold war tensions over the past few years has allowed the Obama administration to place US troops and missile systems in Poland and the Baltic states. Something the citizens of those countries opposed initially. It'll be interesting to see if Trump starts withdrawing them.

El_Duderino 09

Amerika wrote:

Do I have this right? As a result of Trump’s win, President Obama, the Democrats and the mainstream media all claim Russia hacked the DNC server to swing the election in Trump’s favor. Yet the FBI never requested access to the DNC servers, nor has any other government agency run an independent forensic analysis on the system, and instead relied on a report from a private vendor (Crowdstrike) to conclude that it was the Russians? And now based on the claims from our government’s intelligence ‘experts’ President Obama, in retaliation, has sent special forces to the Russian border to strike back against Putin’s aggression?

Assuming we don't know who did the hacking and the fake news. What do you think of Trump's complete lack of curiousity about who did it?

Count Dooku

Looks like Democrats understand democracy only as a rule of Democratic party
Democratic lawmakers considering challenge to Trump’s Electoral College victory - POLITICO
Colin Powell Can Be Elected President of The United States on January 6 | The Huffington Post

AnGaelach

Count Dooku wrote: »

Looks like Democrats understand democracy only as a rule of Democratic party

The Electors may be considered illegitimate but the State votes wouldn't be. They're supposed to be largely bound to vote along the lines the State voted. A Democrat would be supposed to vote for Trump if he lived in a State were Trump won.

If they try to do it, there'd be uproar, and setting the stage for the Republicans to do this with every election (no doubt they'd find some way to stop a Democrat getting control).

Amerika

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Assuming we don't know who did the hacking and the fake news. What do you think of Trump's complete lack of curiousity about who did it?

Maybe Trump wants proof before accusing Russia. Perhaps all the qualifying words (Possibly, Appears, Connects, Indicates) that are being used to ‘prove’ evidence of Russian responsibility for hacking the Democrats isn’t good enough to indict someone. We all know Russia, China, other hostile countries, and even friendly countries constantly try, and do, hack us. Perhaps he is more interested in securing things going forward.

El_Duderino 09

Amerika wrote:

Maybe Trump wants proof before accusing Russia. Perhaps all the qualifying words (Possibly, Appears, Connects, Indicates) that are being used to ‘prove’ evidence of Russian responsibility for hacking the Democrats isn’t good enough to indict someone. We all know Russia, China, other hostile countries, and even friendly countries constantly try, and do, hack us. Perhaps he is more interested in securing things going forward.

Wants proof before he makes accusations? I'd like to think so but why the sudden interest in proof before speaking out in this one instance.

Do you think he will try to find out who did it in the interest of securing things going forward?

Amerika

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Wants proof before he makes accusations? I'd like to think so but why the sudden interest in proof before speaking out in this one instance.

Do you think he will try to find out who did it in the interest of securing things going forward?

Why does he have to? Republican congressional leaders are already committed to joining Democrats at looking into the hacks. And wouldn’t it just be a massive waste of time if our FBI or other government agencies never even examined the servers of the Democratic National Committee. Seems like most are willing to let the accusations about Russia live in perpetuity without evidence.

El_Duderino 09

Amerika wrote:

Why does he have to? Republican congressional leaders are already committed to joining Democrats at looking into the hacks. And wouldn’t it just be a massive waste of time if our FBI or other government agencies never even examined the servers of the Democratic National Committee. Seems like most are willing to let the accusations about Russia live in perpetuity without evidence.

Why should he care about the integrity of the democratic system? I think it's important.

If he/we doesn't know who did, it why is he so interested in deflecting any attention away from Russia e.g. saying it's ridiculous to think Russia did it ? He constantly reminds everyone it could be China. Why does he need proof that it WAS Russia, but needs no evidence to put China in the frame?

As a matter of interest do you think everyone should forget about it and look to the future as Trump suggested? Or should he support the democrats and republicans in getting to the bottom of it?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Maybe Trump wants proof before accusing Russia.

When has he ever wanted proof of anything, besides a birth certificate? "I read it online" is his rationale for everything these days.

Amerika

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why should he care about the integrity of the democratic system? I think it's important.

If he/we doesn't know who did, it why is he so interested in deflecting any attention away from Russia e.g. saying it's ridiculous to think Russia did it ? He constantly reminds everyone it could be China. Why does he need proof that it WAS Russia, but needs no evidence to put China in the frame?

As a matter of interest do you think everyone should forget about it and look to the future as Trump suggested? Or should he support the democrats and republicans in getting to the bottom of it?

Oh, come on. This is less about finding out about the hacks and of seriously repairing our vulnerabilities, and more about an election outcome a lot of people didn’t like. Don’t paint it as anything more.

Because the FBI didn’t bother to take a look at the evidence for themselves on this hack and showed a stunning lack of interest on the matter up till now indicates that Congress is wasting everyone’s time and efforts to conduct a political stunt.

Where was the cyberattack attention and outrage until now? When hostile entities actually conducted hacks into actual government agencies including OPM, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, State Department, amoungst other critical government agencies, and at the critical cyber-infrastructure supplier Juniper... where was the screaming for a joint select committee to investigate cyberwarfare? No, BUT now that it might have happened to a private political organization – the vaulted DNC, it’s bring out the pitchforks and torches and storm the castle.

Spare me.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Where was the cyberattack attention and outrage until now? When hostile entities actually conducted hacks into actual government agencies including OPM, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, State Department, amoungst other critical government agencies, and at the critical cyber-infrastructure supplier Juniper... where was the screaming for a joint select committee to investigate cyberwarfare? No, BUT now that it might have happened to a private political organization – the vaulted DNC, it’s bring out the pitchforks and torches and storm the castle.

Spare me.

....I'm sorry, you could apply this argument to Benghazi please, and embassy attacks?

PopePalpatine

Overheal wrote: »

....I'm sorry, you could apply this argument to Benghazi please, and embassy attacks?

Speaking of embassy attacks...guess who wants to gut maintenance, construction and security funding for US embassies if the USA doesn't move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem?

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Where was the cyberattack attention and outrage until now?

A very "odd" claim given that this poster was definitely aware of it getting attention long before now (it was one of the biggest stories of the entire campaign), here they are giving it attention themselves almost six months ago.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100464816&postcount=8602

Amerika wrote:

The Clinton campaign manager has said, regarding the email leaks of the DNC: that Russia hacked the DNC and is releasing the emails now to help Trump.

I spent extra time this morning watching the morning news to see the reporting regarding the email leaks. There was some talk about how the DNC worked to help Hillary Clinton in the primary and some talk about the DNC questioning Bernie Sanders’ faith. Not a mention of the emails regarding collusion between the DNC and the media. But the big story from our media today...
Russia may have hacked the DNC emails in order to help Trump. No substance behind the accusation. And in today’s media world the defending Democrats doesn’t seem to need any.

And pictures coming out of Philadelphia indicate Democrats now believe in walls. They have erected a 4 mile long, 8 foot tall, wall outside their convention center. Now if only we can convince them a wall should be utilized to keep out illegals instead of Americans.

And that it's been in the news for at least a year and a half...



Which this poster was well aware of, as here they are commenting on that... over a year and a half ago.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96650088&postcount=1188

I didn't say she was guilty, yet. But any other citizen or official would already have been arrested if they did what she did. The same prosecutor who took down General Petraeus for improper possession of classified information is now looking into Hillary Clinton's email server. Petraeus pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges after keeping physical copies of classified information locked in a desk drawer at his house, and his career is ruined. Clinton's possession of top secret information on her personal server is far worse than the Petraeus case. And she gave copies on a thumb drive to her lawyer. But I can almost guarantee nothing will be done to her simply because of who she is.

And I am reading that the FBI is not investigating Clintons questionable handling of her top secret information on her personal server, but rather if enemies like China and Russia have hacked into them.

Funny how Russia isn't such an 'enemy' anymore, eh! You'd almost be lead to think that someone cares more about their favoured 'team' than their own country. Just the type of thing to keep in mind when engaging certain individuals.

El_Duderino 09

Amerika wrote:

Oh, come on. This is less about finding out about the hacks and of seriously repairing our vulnerabilities, and more about an election outcome a lot of people didn’t like. Don’t paint it as anything more.

Are you seriously suggesting that hacking to help/hinder presidential candidates isn't worth serious investigation? Nothing morethan an election result people didn't like? Is that the approach you take to all matters?

Amerika wrote:

Because the FBI didn’t bother to take a look at the evidence for themselves on this hack and showed a stunning lack of interest on the matter up till now indicates that Congress is wasting everyone’s time and efforts to conduct a political stunt.

Why are you only caught up on the FBI? Are they the only security agency that matters?

Amerika wrote:

Where was the cyberattack attention and outrage until now?

The cyber attacks attention was in the big papers before the election. Trump takes about people tampering with the election as if it was a bad thing. Now it seems like he's fine with it.

Anyway like I was asking...

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

As a matter of interest do you think everyone should forget about it and look to the future as Trump suggested? Or should he support the democrats and republicans in getting to the bottom of the hacking?

KingBrian2

Can you picture all the possible offenses the US gvt can introduce out of these hacks? Many criminals will be caused by legislators having a field day going after these hackers.