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

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

Options
1…256257259261262…332

Comments

  • Options
    #7742
    demfad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    Where's the evidence Trump colluded during the election with the Russians, according to Sen Feinstein (D), as of a few days ago, there isn't any, but the media have no problem shovelling it 24/7, Le double standards indeed. Also I can understand why the family would want to deny it.

    I am not going to list the abundant evidence for a timewaster like you again. I've done it several times at least.

    Fenstein said no such thing. Please quote the converstaion with Fenstein and the reporter to substantiate your point.


  • Options
    #7743
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    B_Wayne wrote: »
    As Demfad already pointed out, the scale of the information is not fully known as the Washington Post viewed it as too dangerous to simply make public.

    The same publication that said the US power grid had been hacked by the Russians and employs John Podesta, sorry if I'm sceptical about their agenda.


  • Options
    #7744
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,372 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    I don't "rely" on any, but one of the few with some sort of neutrality and non spin is reuters.

    Fair enough. On US matters, I find the BBC quite objective too.


  • Options
    #7745
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    And? I didn't say it was made up, I said it was exaggerated as if he gave the nuclear codes away.

    Again, you're the only one claiming the exaggeration. Why are you claming so?


  • Options
    #7746
    demfad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    And? I didn't say it was made up, I said it was exaggerated as if he gave the nuclear codes away.
    B_Wayne wrote: »
    As Demfad already pointed out, the scale of the information is not fully known as the Washington Post viewed it as too dangerous to simply make public.

    Exactly. WAPO under reported the story for security reasons. The content of the leak was far more serious than what they were able to report.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7747
    B_Wayne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    The same publication that said the US power grid had been hacked by the Russians and employs John Podesta, sorry if I'm sceptical about their agenda.

    Trump isn't even going as far as saying 'fake news' in this instance, he's pissed that somebody leaked what he did. Reuters confirmed the story and you trust them apparently......


  • Options
    #7748
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,372 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    demfad wrote: »
    Reuters confirmed the WAPO story.

    Yes. Not a very easy read for The Donald or his supporters.


  • Options
    #7749
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    demfad wrote: »
    I am not going to list the abundant evidence for a timewaster like you again. I've done it several times at least.

    Fenstein said no such thing. Please quote the converstaion with Fenstein and the reporter to substantiate your point.



    Then there's this Grassley statement collaberated with Feinstein confirming that Trump isn't under investigation.

    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/05-11-17%20Grassley%20Statement.pdf

    Timewaster? You're the one who quotes Rachel Maddow's story about Russians being murdered to cover up Trumps win.


  • Options
    #7750
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    I see someone has arrived to try change the narrative from Trump giving away what are literally the highest level top secrets by going over old ground, again.


  • Options
    #7751
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,636 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Kitsunegari wrote: »
    The latest derail tactic? Don't you find it all suspicious that Seth Rich was the reported leaker of the DNC emails and then was suspiciously murdered? You and others continue to apply double standards to what information you choose to believe and what you don't. Don't you find that slightly suspicious at all?

    How is this a derail tactic? The level of bias and double standards on this thread is quite frankly appalling.

    There is no tangible evidence on either side to prove what has happened. What's wrong with keeping an open mind until we reach that point of having tangible definitive evidence?

    If you don't know who Seth Rich is then you don't deserve to be going around screaming Russia at every poster that disagrees with you.

    Of course it is suspicious, but nothing more than that. As of now, we have a DNC worker, for reasons unknown, that provided e-mails to wikileaks.

    Are these the same e-mails that wikileaks published? Are they the only e-mails wikileaks published? Does it rule out Russian involvement? Did Russian learn of the leak and use Wikileaks as the conduit to help Trump?

    I, and neither do you, know the answers. But you seem happy to conjecture as to what happened and the motivation behind it.

    Yet at the same time you want Trump be be given leeway until exact proof is provided. Double standards? I'm afraid that on you.

    If this DNC worker leaked some mails (which it appears so) then he would be proscecuted if still alive.

    But on the other hand we have Trump clearly deciding on his own to pass allie sourced top secret info to the Russians. Apparently in the spirit of friendship. Yet this doesn't seem to trigger the possibility that Russia has already done the same for him prior to the election?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7752
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    I see someone has arrived to try change the narrative from Trump giving away what are literally the highest level top secrets by going over old ground, again.

    I'll let you get back to it, the Russians are coming!


  • Options
    #7753
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    This pretty much sums things up, seems things are the same the world over, open the tweet for the story...

    https://twitter.com/ryanbeckwith/status/864487834480148484


  • Options
    #7754
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »


    Then there's this Grassley statement collaberated with Feinstein confirming that Trump isn't under investigation.

    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/05-11-17%20Grassley%20Statement.pdf

    Timewaster? You're the one who quotes Rachel Maddow's story about Russians being murdered to cover up Trumps win.


    None of these statements say that Trump isn't being investigated by the FBI and you know it.

    That won't stop you spamming them and pointing to them as proof, however.


  • Options
    #7755
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    McMaster's briefing now, somewhat delayed. Could be interesting, once he gets beyond the boring **** of who Trump will have coffee and dinner with in Saudi Arabia.


  • Options
    #7756
    Nody
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,311 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    Hank Scorpio wrote: »
    I'll let you get back to it, the Russians are coming!
    Hank do you, or do you not, accept that Trump gave away classified intelligence to Russia which had the highest classification by USA that they received from a third party country?

    And by extension do you think that with Trump giving away information he's not suppose to share esp. as it came from a third party country, will endanger future information sharing (and hence possibility to stop terrorist attacks)?


  • Options
    #7757
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Second question asked by some clown was about his visit to the western wall.


  • Options
    #7758
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,372 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    McMaster's briefing now, somewhat delayed. Could be interesting, once he gets beyond the boring **** of who Trump will have coffee and dinner with in Saudi Arabia.

    McMaster (and the few others who have character in Trump's team) is in a bind. Though he doesn't really want to stay loyal to a president he doesn't respect, he really no choice unless he resigns. Resignation means the end of any ambition. Bit like standing on the deck of the Titanic and watching the last lifeboat slipping away.


  • Options
    #7759
    Kitsunegari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 314 ✭✭Kitsunegari


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Of course it is suspicious, but nothing more than that. As of now, we have a DNC worker, for reasons unknown, that provided e-mails to wikileaks.

    Are these the same e-mails that wikileaks published? Are they the only e-mails wikileaks published? Does it rule out Russian involvement? Did Russian learn of the leak and use Wikileaks as the conduit to help Trump?

    I, and neither do you, know the answers. But you seem happy to conjecture as to what happened and the motivation behind it.

    Yet at the same time you want Trump be be given leeway until exact proof is provided. Double standards? I'm afraid that on you.

    If this DNC worker leaked some mails (which it appears so) then he would be proscecuted if still alive.

    You can't keep moving the goalposts to suit your argument. I asked you how is this a derailing tactic from Trump?

    Also, how am I employing double standards? Does the term innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you? Waiting for tangible evidence on either side is now double standards apparently..

    What relevance does the bit in bold have?


  • Options
    #7760
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    No denying that a city was shared with the Russians. The spin now is that what was shared was appropriate, but won't clarify if it was classified.


  • Options
    #7761
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Now he said the president wasn't even aware of the source of the information (which is a confirmation that it was leaked) and then legged it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7762
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Second question asked by some clown was about his visit to the western wall.

    Well that has some relevance because apparently the trump team told the israelis yesterday that Netanyahu wasn't welcome on trumps visit to the wall because it "wasn't in Israeli territory" !


  • Options
    #7763
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,372 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    The problem for The Donald and his team is this. It's not important anymore whether the information was classified or not (though I suspect it was). The problem is that Trump (by Twitter FFS) and his staff are defending his actions on a daily basis. If he wasn't behaving so inappropriately, then there would be nothing to defend. Twitter rants, Flynn, Comey, inappropriate conversations with Russian ambassadors in the White House etc. ad nauseam. He simply can't help himself. Time after time. Thus his Presidency is fragmenting at an ever-increasing rate.


  • Options
    #7764
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,636 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Kitsunegari wrote: »
    You can't keep moving the goalposts to suit your argument. I asked you how is this a derailing tactic from Trump?

    Also, how am I employing double standards? Does the term innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you? Waiting for tangible evidence on either side is now double standards apparently..

    What relevance does the bit in bold have?

    What goalposts are you talking about.

    Trump releases top secret indo to Russia a day after firing the head of the FBI.
    You, a non descript DNC working may have leaked some e-mails that may, or may not, have been used in the wikileaks dump.

    This non related story was put into the thread, which at the time was discussing Trump give away for top secret information to a accepted non-ally.

    I was asking how this story has any relevance as the only thing one can take is that the assumption is that the story in some way cast additional doubt over Trump/Russia links. Even if true the story does not to do.
    • Are these the same e-mails that wikileaks published?
      Are they the only e-mails wikileaks published?
      Does it rule out Russian involvement?
      Did Russian learn of the leak and use Wikileaks as the conduit to help Trump?

    The double standards is you are presenting this as some sort or narrative, yet at the same time decrying posters in here for continuing to raise the Trump/Russia line without, in your opinion, no evidence. There is no evidence here either.


  • Options
    #7765
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,636 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Now he said the president wasn't even aware of the source of the information (which is a confirmation that it was leaked) and then legged it.

    In a way that is even worse. He didn't even know the value of the information he has and simply handed it over.

    I bet that makes foreign allies feel much better!


  • Options
    #7766
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    The problem for The Donald and his team is this. It's not important anymore whether the information was classified or not (though I suspect it was). The problem is that Trump (by Twitter FFS) and his staff are defending his actions on a daily basis. If he wasn't behaving so inappropriately, then there would be nothing to defend. Twitter rants, Flynn, Comey, inappropriate conversations with Russian ambassadors in the White House etc. ad nauseam. He simply can't help himself. Time after time. Thus his Presidency is fragmenting at an ever-increasing rate.

    He would be so dangerous if he had any self control. Thankfully, he can't help making his supporters look foolish.


  • Options
    #7767
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    Well that has some relevance because apparently the trump team told the israelis yesterday that Netanyahu wasn't welcome on trumps visit to the wall because it "wasn't in Israeli territory" !

    True, the follow up question later by another journalist was better phrased and I caught the point of it then.


  • Options
    #7768
    Rjd2
    Registered Users Posts: 12,107 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    McMaster (and the few others who have character in Trump's team) is in a bind. Though he doesn't really want to stay loyal to a president he doesn't respect, he really no choice unless he resigns. Resignation means the end of any ambition. Bit like standing on the deck of the Titanic and watching the last lifeboat slipping away.

    The more people who have a clue around Trump the better for everyone. I wouldn't blame him though if he cut his losses however.

    The White house tried to defuse this last night, and Trump with a couple of stupid tweets has again poured gasoline all over it.

    Allegedly Conway and a few others banned him from tweeting in the week before the Nov election, strong argument to be made that the rule should be re-enforced. Its doing him no favours whatsoever.


  • Options
    #7769
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,372 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Rjd2 wrote: »
    The more people who have a clue around Trump the better for everyone. I wouldn't blame him though if he cut his losses though.

    The White house tried to defuse this last night, and Trump with a couple of stupid tweets has again poured gasoline all over it.

    Allegedly Conway and a few others banned him from tweeting in the week before the Nov election, strong argument to be made that the rule should be re-enforced. Its doing him no favours whatsoever.

    Presidency by tweet. He's a parody. Perhaps it just one giant piece of performance art. Trump won't last but his legacy will be the demeaning of the office of POTUS.


  • Options
    #7770
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    InTheTrees wrote: »
    Well that has some relevance because apparently the trump team told the israelis yesterday that Netanyahu wasn't welcome on trumps visit to the wall because it "wasn't in Israeli territory" !

    True, the follow up question later by another journalist was better phrased and I caught the point of it then.

    The trump admin have also pissed off the Israelis by promising during the campaign to move the US embassy from tel Aviv to Jerusalem before they realized how inflammatory and significant that would be and had to go back on that pledge.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7771
    Kitsunegari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 314 ✭✭Kitsunegari


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    The trump admin have also pissed off the Israelis by promising during the campaign to move the US embassy from tel Aviv to Jerusalem before they realized how inflammatory and significant that would be and had to go back on that pledge.

    That was an incredibly stupid move from Trump. No doubt it was a play to get some more conservatives on his side. What is interesting is that the pledge came shortly after Cruz pledged support for Trump. Cruz's campaign pledges on Israel were embarrassing. What's even more embarrassing is that Trump appeared to take on some of his policies. Also, Trumps online fans don't really like Israel, especially 4Chan.

    I'm not saying that 4Chan is the reason he decided to roll back on his pledge but you can't underestimate how important 4Chan are at trying to create a pro-Trump narrative. Like Shareblue and Breitbart, they're the big misinformation spreaders online.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement