Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I've already stated my opinion, refer to the Greenwald article, I agree with him.

The article doesn't really deal with whether he should be anonymous, it only deals with whether CNN should have been the organisation to do it.

The article is also not as straightforward as the selective parts that you posted.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What do you think Trumps been doing?

So what the problem them? Really, you bring up an argument and then agree that Trump has been doing it all along.

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what the problem them? Really, you bring up an argument and then agree that Trump has been doing it all along.

It's different, CNN went after a private citizen who posted a meme. It wasn't even the one Trump tweeted.

If it has nothing got to with CNN being a media organisation, would you be fine if the Trump organisation seen a post by you here calling Trump derogatory names, published an article about you to the world with your posting history, then warned you that if you ever post anything negative towards Trump again, they have the right to release your information?

That's seemingly fine to you, I just think you're being disingenuous because you hate Trump. If Fox did it to a Hillary supporter last year I think your stance would flip entirely.

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

It's different, CNN went after a private citizen who posted a meme. It wasn't even the one Trump tweeted.

If it has nothing got to with CNN being a media organisation, would you be fine if the Trump organisation seen a post by you here calling Trump derogatory names, published an article about you to the world, and warned you that if you ever post anything negative towards Trump again, they have the right to release your information?

That's seemingly fine to you, I just think you're being disingenuous because you hate Trump. If Fox did it to a Hillary supporter last year I think your stance would flip entirely.

So you think this was out of order https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/this-is-what-happens-when-donald-trump-attacks-a-private-citizen-on-twitter/2016/12/08/a1380ece-bd62-11e6-91ee-1adddfe36cbe_story.html

Hank Scorpio

Really Interested wrote: »

So you think was out of order in this https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/this-is-what-happens-when-donald-trump-attacks-a-private-citizen-on-twitter/2016/12/08/a1380ece-bd62-11e6-91ee-1adddfe36cbe_story.html

That Woman appeared in public for all to see. She was put there by Jeb Bush's campaign.

I don't see the relevance.

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

I agree, but the same should be levelled at Trump.

And I guess CNN don't see it as nonsense. It is a direct attack on their brand, the value of which depends on their standing with the public. This gif was used as part of a campaign to degrade that brand.

Would you sit idly by if you were being attacked?

The tweet by Trump is newsworthy, the creator of the gif is irrelevant. Its not like it was a piece of highly produced propaganda that had to be financed by some outside agency. It something an amature made in an hour in his bedroom. The interesting thing is that Trump decided it was worth re-tweeting as the President of the USA. It doesn't matter who actually made it.

Billy86

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That Woman appeared in public for all to see. She was put there by Jeb Bush's campaign.

I don't see the relevance.

So she put her opinions out in a public place and so became fair is what you're saying.

Billy86

Don't recall hearing much criticism for this, either...

Government seeks to unmask Trump dissident on Twitter, lawsuit reveals

The US government sought to unmask an anonymous Twitter account criticizing its policies, according to a lawsuit filed by the social media platform Thursday.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a division of the homeland security department, issued a summons to Twitter on 14 March seeking records including the phone number, mailing addresses, and IP addresses associated with @ALT_USCIS, an account that purports to convey the views of dissenters within the government.

Leroy42

I see the issue Hank. You treat posting on the internet as a private space and others, myself included, do not.

I have asked a few times about what the difference is between speaking in public, publishing an article in a newspaper and posting on the web.

I don't see any difference, save for the method. People seem to be of the mistaken view that posting on the net absolves one of the responsibility that one would carry in other areas. But that is not true.

People have been charged over posting abusive tweets etc, even though at the start it appeared that it was anonymous.

IMO, the guy did publicly broadcast his political opinions. And that makes it fair game for anyone, be it CNN, you, me whatever, to call him out on it. If you can't stand by what you are about to post, then better not to post it. If more people took this approach I think we wouldn't be in the divided state we are witnessing.

mcmoustache

You guys are over complicating this.

When Trump does it, it's OK. When someone that Trump dislikes does it, it's not OK.

You might think that I'm joking or being sarcastic here but I'm not. This is basically the logic being used.

Billy86

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

If that twitter account was run by Government employees leaking information like the other ones, then I would have done the same thing. If not, then I agree it's an abuse of power. and ridiculous. Strawmanish though, either way CNN made a boo boo.

It was run by anonymous posters, simple as that. Nobody knows if they were government employees or not and I vaguely recall some pro Trump posters on here (or was it reddit?) trying quite hard to make out that it was 'fake'.

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

So you'd understand if the Trump organisation did the same to you for calling Trump an orange idiot or simply criticising him, it more or less equates to the wrestling gif. That kind of threatening behaviour is totalitarian at best.

But the US already does this. Travellers into the country can have their social media checked.

I stand by what I post here and in other places. It might be wrong, I am happy to be corrected, but it is based on the evidence that I have at the time.

So whilst I wouldn't be happy to be brought to a wider world attention, I don't think that I have ever posted anything that would warrant such attention unlike the man we are talking about, but if Trump did decide to retweet it then I would be happy to argue my case.

Hank Scorpio

Billy86 wrote: »

News so fake that the FBI are examining it!

Since October?

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the US already does this. Travellers into the country can have their social media checked.

I stand by what I post here and in other places. It might be wrong, I am happy to be corrected, but it is based on the evidence that I have at the time.

So whilst I wouldn't be happy to be brought to a wider world attention, I don't think that I have ever posted anything that would warrant such attention unlike the man we are talking about, but if Trump did decide to retweet it then I would be happy to argue my case.

That wasn't your argument.

I fail to see how posting a wrestling gif with a CNN logo imposed is much different then calling Trump an orange buffoon on the "insult meter".

Billy86

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Since October?

It would appear so, have not seen anything to say it has been dropped - http://uk.businessinsider.com/fbi-alfa-bank-trump-organization-servers-2017-3?r=US&IR=T

Hank Scorpio

Billy86 wrote: »

It was run by anonymous posters, simple as that. Nobody knows if they were government employees or not and I vaguely recall some pro Trump posters on here (or was it reddit?) trying quite hard to make out that it was 'fake'.

It's not the same. If they claimed to be Government officials leaking information and I'm assuming they were if they went to all that bother, Trump has every right to find out who they were and get rid of them.

The handle I called fake wasn't that one from memory. It was one posting things like dirty muzzies and so on.

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That wasn't your argument.

I fail to see how posting a wrestling gif with a CNN logo imposed is much different then calling Trump an orange buffoon on the "insult meter".

I am trying Hank, I really am but you are making this difficult.

My argument is that what is posted on the internet is akin to publishing in the newspaper etc.

You asked if I would be happy if Trump called me out. I said I wouldn't be happy, but I would stand by what I said. If I was shown to be incorrect I would retract and apologise. I am not ashamed of what I post here or anywhere else. The real question is whether I would feel violated in some way if what I posted here was posted somewhere else. And again, I wouldn't be happy about it, but neither can I complain as I have made the decision to post my views on a public forum.

If you want to keep your view private, guess what? Keep them private. CNN did not go into this guys bedroom and read his diary. They didn't wiretap him. They merely read his published works and asked for a comment

Trump is very happy to call people out when he believes they are being unfair (he has renamed this fake). To openly mock them. CNN did none of these things.

Yet you have a problem with CNN. You keep stating that peoples hatred of Trump is clouding their view but I would argue the opposite to you. You are allowing you support of all things Trump to blind you that CNN have done nothing wrong here.

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

I said I wouldn't be happy, but I would stand by what I said.

So you'd be fine if they told you, if you post negative things in the future again we'll be watching you and we'll release your information?

That's what I've been trying to get at. If you say you'd be fine with that I won't believe you sadly. It's akin to blackmail.

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

So you'd be fine if they told you, if you post negative things in the future again we'll be watching you and we'll release your information?

That's what I've been trying to get at. If you say you'd be fine with that I won't believe you sadly. It's akin to blackmail.

That is not what they said. There is clearly a difference between me posting my opinion on the standing of Trump as president, or your opinion on HC etc and posting anti-semetic, racist crap.

Anybody can, and many do, post negative things about Trump. Many post negative things about DNC or whatever. The difference is they must be grounded in something more than simple hatred.

I already said I wouldn't be happy but I would accept it as that is the possible price for posting on a open environment like the internet. If I don't want it public then I should keep it private.

Of course, I like most people, never really think that what I write here or elsewhere will ever go beyond this area but if it does, whilst I would be annoyed, I would only have myself to blame.

Ask yourself, why do you think he posted what he did? Because he wanted to air his views to a wider audience then his family and friends. Well, the only problem is that he never accounted for it really getting out there, he lost control of it. That seems to be the sum of your argument.

ancapailldorcha

Hank Scorpio and Really Interested, stop bickering.

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is not what they said. There is clearly a difference between me posting my opinion on the standing of Trump as president, or your opinion on HC etc and posting anti-semetic, racist crap.

That is exactly what they said. They specifically wrote that if his behavior changes in the future they can release his name. That's how Greenwald and other top tier journalists also see it. It's a threat. You are being disingenuous.

You've resorted to the muh racist card now I see. That's generally how these things end. It's not about you or me, it's about everyone, everywhere.

Hank Scorpio

Just saw mod note, post took a while sorry.

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That is exactly what they said. They specifically wrote that if his behavior changes in the future they can release his name. That's how Greenwald and other top tier journalists also see it. It's a threat. You are being disingenuous.

You've resorted to the muh racist card now I see. That's generally how these things end. It's not about you or me, it's about everyone, everywhere.

Greenwald also stated in that very article that that was not CNN intent with that line, and it seemed very much to be a lawyer type language. You are painting his article as a complete takedown of CNN position, when in truth, whilst he clearly has issues with how they handled it, he also sees what they were trying to do and never suggests any sympathy to the poster.

I haven't resorted to muh racist card, the guy himself did that. When are you pinning that on me? You keep changing your stance.

Do you think that posting on the internet is the same as publishing in the paper or speaking in public (in terms of responsibility for the message not the method).

Do you think if he stood on a street corner and spoke what he posted that people should not be allowed to video tape him and YouTube it?

It really has nothing to do with Trump or CNN. It all depends on your position in regards to publishing on the internet

Hank Scorpio

We're not going to agree on that subject so that's the end of it as per mod warning. If I was in the guys shoes and read what they wrote the hint would be pretty clear. My posting would definitely be altered as a result ( for life ).

On a separate topic, you said this about Comey and crowdstrike

He stated that whilst they would have preferred to get direct access, they have worked with the company many times and the information they provided was of sufficient quality to deem direct access unnecessary.

That's false. Comey stated they requested multiple times access to the server and it was the best option to investigate. He has says they're respected but never said in any hearing that the FBI and crowdstrike worked together in the past.

I'm out, have a good one.

JRant

The Donald was fairly unequivocal in his latest speech, reaffirmed the US are fully behind article 5 and combating the threat posed by Russia, ISIS and North Korea.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/06/donald-trump-warn-future-west-in-doubt-warsaw-speech

If only he could actually formulate a plan for these words.

Captain Obvious

B_Wayne wrote: »

Some samples of the user's content include tweeting CNN staff with Stars of David on each of them. Sample of some of his other posts below.

http://imgur.com/a/hfUAo

He was a hateful moron who I have zero sympathy for. If I worked in CNN, I'd have major issues with him posting fellow coworker in an antisemetic rant. There's a distinct irony in the likes of Julian Assange going after CNN for this btw, one of his leaks last year leaked addresses, names etc of people who were victims of the Saudi Arabian government.... That's a hell of a lot more serious and actually endangers lives.

This also isn't a freedom of speech issue, if a person engages in hate speech. They do run the risk of people finding out who they are and it backfiring on them.

You are right. It isn't a freedom of speech issue. It's a question of privacy and ethics. It's a question of whether a national media organisation should coerce a man into silence because he made a silly gif of them. You and Overheal think that is ok. I do not. I think it's simply lowering the bar. And I think if the guy had been on the other side of the political divide, many who are delighting in what CNN are doing would be disgusted if it was Fox doing it to one of theirs.

InTheTrees

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It isn't a freedom of speech issue. It's a question of privacy and ethics. It's a question of whether a national media organisation should coerce a man into silence because he made a silly gif of them.

If you publish political material on the web you shouldn't be surprised if you're called out on it.

Captain Obvious

InTheTrees wrote: »

If you publish political material on the web you shouldn't be surprised if you're called out on it.

Nobody has suggested otherwise.

InTheTrees

JRant wrote: »

The Donald was fairly unequivocal in his latest speech, reaffirmed the US are fully behind article 5 and combating the threat posed by Russia, ISIS and North Korea.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/06/donald-trump-warn-future-west-in-doubt-warsaw-speech

If only he could actually formulate a plan for these words.

I certainly hope that NATO isn't trusting anything trump says.
He'll probably be back to badmouthing them again as soon as he's back in the US.

Leroy42

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Nobody has suggested otherwise.

So what is the issue then? Is it simply that CNN did it or that MSM as whole did it?

Just to put this right again, CNN did not coerce anybody. They tried to contact him, failed to have direct contact and he decided to delete his account and issue apology.

So no coercion. At all. None.

Leroy42

JRant wrote: »

The Donald was fairly unequivocal in his latest speech, reaffirmed the US are fully behind article 5 and combating the threat posed by Russia, ISIS and North Korea.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/06/donald-trump-warn-future-west-in-doubt-warsaw-speech

If only he could actually formulate a plan for these words.

But how can you trust what he now says. Was he talking crap a few weeks ago and now Nato is important again, or does he just want someone to help him dig himself out of the one way hole he dug himself over NK?

The world is no doubt entering into a difficult time and he has spent the last number of months as POTUS (and somewhat before) seemingly going out of his to p*ss off his European allies whilst at the same time cosying up to Russia.

B_Wayne

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You are right. It isn't a freedom of speech issue. It's a question of privacy and ethics. It's a question of whether a national media organisation should coerce a man into silence because he made a silly gif of them. You and Overheal think that is ok. I do not. I think it's simply lowering the bar. And I think if the guy had been on the other side of the political divide, many who are delighting in what CNN are doing would be disgusted if it was Fox doing it to one of theirs.

You and others seem to conveniently ignore the fact that he posted CNN staff with a Star of David on each of them... The user crossed a line into hate speech. I'm never gonna feel sympathy for one wishing to retain their right to anonymous hate speech.

Itssoeasy

So trump is meeting with merkel this evening and putin tomorrow ? Yeah that's going to go well for the USA. He'll be played like a fiddle by both. Both merkel and Putin are seasoned pros at this international diplomacy lark. Trump is a rookie and not even a good rookie at that.

demfad

Felix Sater has turned on his Kasak oligarch/money laundering friends iand is cooperating in this International laundering investigation.
Sater as part of Bayrock is accused of money laundering through Trump Soho (100 million) and 3 other Trump towers.
Mueller has been hiring the US's best legal experts in Laundering and fraud for his widening investigation. Let's just say Trump might be 'vulnerable' in this area if a Federal/Special Counsel investigation rowed in, as looks like they have.

https://www.ft.com/content/159eb2d8-6162-11e7-8814-0ac7eb84e5f1?mhq5j=e1

Captain Obvious

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what is the issue then? Is it simply that CNN did it or that MSM as whole did it?

Just to put this right again, CNN did not coerce anybody. They tried to contact him, failed to have direct contact and he decided to delete his account and issue apology.

So no coercion. At all. None.

They emailed him and then he contacted them. I'd call that direct contact.

B_Wayne wrote: »

You and others seem to conveniently ignore the fact that he posted CNN staff with a Star of David on each of them... The user crossed a line into hate speech. I'm never gonna feel sympathy for one wishing to retain their right to anonymous hate speech.

I'm not ignoring anything. It's just irrelevant.

Leroy42

Captain Obvious wrote: »

They emailed him and then he contacted them. I'd call that direct contact.

But not enough to coerce him. They merely contacted to say they wanted to talk.

You claimed they coerced him into silence. Based on what.

You then go on to say that you have no issue if people are called out on stuff they publish on the internet.

So again, what is your issue here?

Captain Obvious

Leroy42 wrote: »

But not enough to coerce him. They merely contacted to say they wanted to talk.

You claimed they coerced him into silence. Based on what.

You then go on to say that you have no issue if people are called out on stuff they publish on the internet.

So again, what is your issue here?

Doxxing and coercion are my issues. I thought I'd made that quite clear.

Billy86

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Doxxing and coercion are my issues. I thought I'd made that quite clear.

You might have missed the part in the post you quoted asking what the coercion was based on.

Overheal

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What do you think Trumps been doing?

BTW, Here is what HanAssholeSolo thinks of the CNN statement:

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/882429541981052928

Doubtless, the phone call is on record.

Captain Obvious

Billy86 wrote: »

You might have missed the part in the post you quoted asking what the coercion was based on.

No, it's just been answered already. It's based on them saying that they will release his info if he isn't a good boy.

Overheal wrote: »

BTW, Here is what HanAssholeSolo thinks of the CNN statement:

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/882429541981052928

Doubtless, the phone call is on record.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he'd say anything to avoid them making good on their threat.

Leroy42

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Doxxing and coercion are my issues. I thought I'd made that quite clear.

There was no coercion. So we are down to doxxing.

You you have already stated that:

If you publish political material on the web you shouldn't be surprised if you're called out on it.

Nobody has suggested otherwise.

Captain Obvious

Leroy42 wrote: »

There was no coercion.

I disagree.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So we are down to doxxing.

You you have already stated that:

You seem to be equating being called out on something to being doxxed. That is not my understanding of the phrase. If they had have simply pointed out his past posts and revealed him as a racist then that would be calling him out. They went one step further and tracked him down and threatened to reveal his personal information if he didn't stop being bold on the internet.

Billy86

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No, it's just been answered already. It's based on them saying that they will release his info if he isn't a good boy.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he'd say anything to avoid them making good on their threat.

I love that he's now lying about it too!

Itssoeasy

The federal ethics chief that recommended Kellyann Conway broke the rules has resigned.

It was always going to happen that he'd resign as it must be a head wreck to have to deal with a WH who don't know much about ethics.

Overheal

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he'd say anything to avoid them making good on their threat.

Now you're just reaching, badly.

They went one step further and tracked him down and threatened to reveal his personal information if he didn't stop being bold on the internet.

Yeah, his name. Not his home address or anything. You should research what doxxing actually is and what it isn't.

aloyisious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You are right. It isn't a freedom of speech issue. It's a question of privacy and ethics. It's a question of whether a national media organisation should coerce a man into silence because he made a silly gif of them. You and Overheal think that is ok. I do not. I think it's simply lowering the bar. And I think if the guy had been on the other side of the political divide, many who are delighting in what CNN are doing would be disgusted if it was Fox doing it to one of theirs.

I got a different reading of the situation existing between CNN and the Reddit poster. CNN investigated the video and it's poster & found other material he had posted. CNN let him know of it's findings and came to a deal with him that if he retracted his posting and not do as he had said he would do: attack CNN staffers at a personal level, CNN would NOT reveal his identity publicly. CNN did this to safeguard its staff and stop hate speech.

I evidence that as being the reason for the single CNN sentence warning him of the consequences if he went back on the private deal they had jointly reached existing. I reckon the published sentence was worded slightly differently from the one given him in the deal between them and him. The only thing CNN did wrong [IMO] was for someone within it to make the private deal public knowledge. That was silly.

aloyisious

JRant wrote: »

The Donald was fairly unequivocal in his latest speech, reaffirmed the US are fully behind article 5 and combating the threat posed by Russia, ISIS and North Korea.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/06/donald-trump-warn-future-west-in-doubt-warsaw-speech

If only he could actually formulate a plan for these words.

I'm reading that to mean the Sec of State and Sec of Defence [and their staffers] are having a hard input into what's in his speeches at [some] forums. he's meeting Vlad tomorrow and it'd be interesting if they have a private one-on-one [advisor-free] meeting without either Sec State or Foreign Minister present. Personally, if he does, I would [as SecState] warn him in advance, by way of a letter, that if he does so that I'd see it as a resigning issue.

aloyisious

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The federal ethics chief that recommended Kellyann Conway broke the rules has resigned.

It was always going to happen that he'd resign as it must be a head wreck to have to deal with a WH who don't know much about ethics.

Another position that a muppet gets to fill with a puppet! :mad:

JRant

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm reading that to mean the Sec of State and Sec of Defence [and their staffers] are having a hard input into what's in his speeches at [some] forums. he's meeting Vlad tomorrow and it'd be interesting if they have a private one-on-one [advisor-free] meeting without either Sec State or Foreign Minister present.

That was my take as well. I'd say Mattis is somewhat keeping him in check and has him rowing back on previoys statements.

Hank Scorpio

Overheal wrote: »

BTW, Here is what HanAssholeSolo thinks of the CNN statement:

Everyone is honest when there's a gun pointed to their head.

Billy86

Amazing how he hasn't leaked these threats to be honest, but hey if that's what someone believes then for something like collusion with Russia I'm sure they'd hold a similar standard of evidence required.