Trump

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
felter
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat, 9. Nov 02, 19:13
xr

Post by felter » Thu, 20. Sep 18, 00:22

So it looks like Trump has disowned Session's as he has said:
'I don't have an attorney general'
Once again stating his disgust at Session by saying:
he was "very disappointed" about Mr Sessions' decision to leave the investigation.
He has also mentioned that there he has not tried to obstruct justice and that there was no collusion by either him or his election party.

We all know his son, son-in-law and Paul Manafort did have a certain meeting that looks awfully like collusion, and that Manafoprt's plea deal with Mueller probably has something to do with that meeting. Meanwhile Trump, though he has been warned many times before that his comments about Session's, could be construed as trying to obstruct justice in itself, but he is too dumb to be able understand and take this in.

The BBC story on it but I'm sure all of the other fake news is also talking about it.
I'm not saying he is a Russian asset, I'm saying he sat on his asset when he was supposed to be confronting Putin.
He will not be re-elected. Without a wall, he will only be remembered as a small cartoon figure who briefly inflamed and amused the rabble.

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Post by Masterbagger » Thu, 20. Sep 18, 04:07

felter wrote:
We all know his son, son-in-law and Paul Manafort did have a certain meeting that looks awfully like collusion, and that Manafoprt's plea deal with Mueller probably has something to do with that meeting. Meanwhile Trump, though he has been warned many times before that his comments about Session's, could be construed as trying to obstruct justice in itself, but he is too dumb to be able understand and take this in.
They met with a Russian lawyer named Natalia Veselnitskaya that claimed to have dirt on Clinton but was actually lobbying to repeal the Magnitsky Act. They ended that 20-30 minute meeting when they realized they weren't going to get anything to use in the campaign. If it's so bad in your opinion to have talked with this Russian broad maybe you should get right on making a list of everyone else who did and report back. She's a lobbyist. It's her job to meet with politicians. Going to be a long list.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
felter
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat, 9. Nov 02, 19:13
xr

Post by felter » Thu, 20. Sep 18, 04:47

Masterbagger wrote:They met with a Russian lawyer named Natalia Veselnitskaya that claimed to have dirt on Clinton but was actually lobbying to repeal the Magnitsky Act.

The thing is, they went into the meeting with the full intention of collaborating with Natalia Veselnitskaya, to get dirt on Hilary Clinton, they did not go into that meeting to discus the Magnitsky Act. Doesn't matter how you or they want to put it, that the meeting ended up being about something else, that something else was not what they wanted or went to get. Besides there is no evidence to show that the meeting ended up being about the Magnitsky Act, while all the emails show it was about something totally different. All the evidence points to collusion, the big question though is, did DJT know about it before hand and that is where the evidence is currently starting to lead to.
I'm not saying he is a Russian asset, I'm saying he sat on his asset when he was supposed to be confronting Putin.
He will not be re-elected. Without a wall, he will only be remembered as a small cartoon figure who briefly inflamed and amused the rabble.

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Post by Masterbagger » Thu, 20. Sep 18, 06:24

felter wrote:
Masterbagger wrote:They met with a Russian lawyer named Natalia Veselnitskaya that claimed to have dirt on Clinton but was actually lobbying to repeal the Magnitsky Act.

The thing is, they went into the meeting with the full intention of collaborating with Natalia Veselnitskaya, to get dirt on Hilary Clinton, they did not go into that meeting to discus the Magnitsky Act. Doesn't matter how you or they want to put it, that the meeting ended up being about something else, that something else was not what they wanted or went to get. Besides there is no evidence to show that the meeting ended up being about the Magnitsky Act, while all the emails show it was about something totally different. All the evidence points to collusion, the big question though is, did DJT know about it before hand and that is where the evidence is currently starting to lead to.
What is your point? Do you think it is illegal to get dirt on an opponent from foreign agents? Were you aware the democrats and Clinton paid for Russian dirt on Trump through an intermediary and used it as the basis for FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign?
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 3549
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x3

Post by fiksal » Thu, 20. Sep 18, 06:52

Masterbagger wrote:Do you think it is illegal to get dirt on an opponent from foreign agents?
hell yeah, it should be if it is not
Masterbagger wrote:the democrats and Clinton paid for Russian dirt on Trump through an intermediary and used it as the basis for FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign?
I wasnt aware Clinton spied on Trump :roll:

Was Clinton behind the guilty pleas too?



As they say, Lock em up

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 2462
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Thu, 20. Sep 18, 09:14

Masterbagger wrote:What is your point? Do you think it is illegal to get dirt on an opponent from foreign agents? Were you aware the democrats and Clinton paid for Russian dirt on Trump through an intermediary and used it as the basis for FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign?
Ooooh, "facts!"

So, which warrants were those?

By the way, meeting with a Russian isn't an offense. But, given that the subject of the meeting was "dirt on Hillary" in conjunction with a discussion about "The Migninksy Act" it doesn't take a huge leap of logic to understand what was really being talked about there, does it?

I have apples, but really like peaches. You have peaches, but really like apples. That chick who wants to sell oranges is full of crap, so we should really be doing business with each other! ;)

Mightysword
Posts: 2513
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 06:11
x3tc

Post by Mightysword » Thu, 20. Sep 18, 10:21

fiksal wrote: I can maybe toss in Fox News (in US), but I am mostly familiar with them after 2000s. And I dont think they've changed, - they were mostly opinions or opinion filtered news and that's what they are now - not much formula has changed. The only Fox News are less opinions are the local Fox stations that really just report local news.
I came to the US in 2002, I have little to no internet access before that. So I essentially grew up reading newspapers. Those papers I read for the most part are strictly informative of nature, almost to a point of being very 'dry'. At first, I also treated most "digital sources" as some kind of news, kinda like a middleschooler cite Wikipedia for their science project. It took me YEARS, probably only about 5-6 years back for me to start taking a pause and asked myself "are these news?"

For me, news should only existed to inform, not to offer an opinion. At least, that's the kind of news I grew up with.

User avatar
felter
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat, 9. Nov 02, 19:13
xr

Post by felter » Thu, 20. Sep 18, 18:15

The Guardian on Stormy Daniels tell all book.
She describes Trump’s penis as “smaller than average” but “not freakishly small”.

“He knows he has an unusual penis,” Daniels writes. “It has a huge mushroom head. Like a toadstool …

“I lay there, annoyed that I was getting ****ed by a guy with Yeti pubes and a **** like the mushroom character in Mario Kart ...

“It may have been the least impressive sex I’d ever had, but clearly, he didn’t share that opinion.”
:lol:

Image
I'm not saying he is a Russian asset, I'm saying he sat on his asset when he was supposed to be confronting Putin.
He will not be re-elected. Without a wall, he will only be remembered as a small cartoon figure who briefly inflamed and amused the rabble.

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed, 22. Feb 06, 00:50
x3ap

Post by Hank001 » Thu, 20. Sep 18, 18:22

@ felter
Wish they'd stop playing around and pull him over.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

Chips
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 20:46
x3tc

Post by Chips » Thu, 20. Sep 18, 18:48

Ignore Trump genetalia related claptrap (it has no relevance to anything of import, just attempts to embarrass, which are pathetic) -- going to dial back a few posts.

1) Most news organisations (in the UK) require more than a singular source to verify something is realistic or, reliably informative, news. They don't just print the first thing someone says to them. Same probably goes for most news organisations, otherwise it'd be a free-for-all.

So they dig, check out their source, check out what they're saying, try to find others who will corroborate what is being said - then weigh up the probabilities of its validity, and run with it if deemed sufficiently reliable.

2) News rooms like Fox (from what I've seen) tended to have several presenters who then discuss what's just been reported, to interpret it for you. As soon as they go from just stating what's happened into discussing, you're in trouble.

But I still maintain, even the comedy ones can still give you an insight into what's going on that you wouldn't otherwise hear. Just you can get used to the language used in order to pick out/up where you should be sceptical or use extreme caution in believing what they're saying. Even RT can report "news", something occurred, but it's under so much spin as to be near impossible to decipher.

It's easier with news papers (for me) as I have longer to read than you get when you listen :D Brain is definitely slower as I approach 40 :(

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed, 22. Feb 06, 00:50
x3ap

Post by Hank001 » Thu, 20. Sep 18, 18:56

Chips:
It's easier with news papers (for me) as I have longer to read than you get when you listen Very Happy Brain is definitely slower as I approach 40 :(.
Past 60 you stop calling it slower and start calling it deliberate. :wink:

On topic, this isn't getting much attention from other outlets, but National Public Radio (NPR) as it put out on the air and posted this:

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/64978707 ... ve-no-idea
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 3549
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x3

Post by fiksal » Thu, 20. Sep 18, 22:26

Mightysword wrote: "are these news?"
I had a different but similar reaction when I figured out that USSR's printed news and broadcasted news were not actually fully news.
For me, news should only existed to inform, not to offer an opinion. At least, that's the kind of news I grew up with.
I agree with that idea; it's easier to decipher when the word "news" is only used for best available info, and not an opinion from it.

Mightysword
Posts: 2513
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 06:11
x3tc

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 21. Sep 18, 02:39

And here is an example of Why is this news? At the time of this posting, that's the headliner on CNN, with a 30 size bold face font. But ... is that news?

I think there is a word I have been forgetting to bring up: tabloid. The line between proper journalism (a.k.a reports) and tabloid (a.k.a the rumor mill, I heard this person said that ...etc...) used to be clearer.

Why I can't answer "Why is this news", it's a fairly obvious why it is written, just have to read the final third of the article. Even if you take a way the Trump angle, this is common tactic among media to push or keep certain narrative, you get ONE paragraph that say something relevant to tittle, and an essay toward certain agenda. Remember in the World Cup thread someone post that "report" about 2 gays person being beat up in Russian. That article spent 2-3 sentences quoting the report from a source, and spent an entire page talking about Russian track record, other people opinion about Russia, activism ...etc... It's like borrowing an opener from someone to simply say your own piece.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 3549
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x3

Post by fiksal » Fri, 21. Sep 18, 03:06

Mightysword wrote:And here is an example of Why is this news? At the time of this posting, that's the headliner on CNN, with a 30 size bold face font. But ... is that news?
It's new of reactions and moods of the white house. I suppose I cant tell you why this is "news". This is certainly not interesting news, as I'd rather hear the accuser and what's that all about.

At least, it doesn't seem factually wrong on the first glance; and how this writer writes is a bit tabloid-y.



I clicked on the author's name, she is "Kaitlan Collins is a CNN White House Correspondent based in Washington, D.C". I suppose that's the most interesting thing about the White House right now.
It's like borrowing an opener from someone to simply say your own piece.
Yeah. It's like this should be links to other articles, rather than repurposed other articles.

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 2844
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 18:47
xr

Post by Observe » Fri, 21. Sep 18, 03:12

What is news? Something new. We need a filter to blot out things we already know. The never-ceasing baying of the dogs of repetition, is what is distracting us from what is actually changing (i.e. news).

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”