EnglishGermanFrenchRussianPolishItalianSpanish
Log inRegister
 
Trump
Post new topic Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 108, 109, 110 ... 129, 130, 131  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Golden_Gonads



MEDALMEDAL

Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 705 on topic
Location: England
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 17. Feb 17, 05:06    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Masterbagger wrote:
Trump is not an obvious threat to me or the liberties I value most. obama was. clinton was.

What liberties did you lose then? I mean between them, Clinton and Obama had 16 years in power, so... What was taken off you?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Morkonan





Joined: 25 Sep 2011
Posts: 1420 on topic

Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 17. Feb 17, 05:59    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Santi wrote:
Personally I do not like the way the Press, Establishment or the Intelligence Services are playing at "king maker".

If contacts between Trump camp and Russia were recorded, and a case for the judiciary exists, why those recordings were not part of the briefing to Obama or even Trump, why Obama did not take action or the FBI? Cannot provide the recordings to the President of the USA but you can leak them to the press?


I haven't checked the news in the last few hours, but there's no evidence that has been presented that any of the conversations were recorded. The contact between Trump's campaign staff and Russia was noticed before the election and this is what both Trump and Obama were briefed on. It seems that the call times, destinations for the calls, and the frequency of the calls troubled U.S. Intelligence agencies.

At the time of a new President's confirmed election, they begin receiving exactly the same Presidential Intelligence Briefing that the sitting U.S. President gets. The information likely wasn't specifically included in order to worry Trump, but they surely knew he would know that they knew what his campaign had been doing as soon as he received the briefing.

Quote:
All this leaked private conversations between Trump and other world leaders by the press, are destabilization's tactics in my book, it is some serious irresponsible stuff to do.


What leaked private conversations are you talking about? Has there been some release of transcripts or recordings of these conversations you're talking about? As far as I know, nobody has mentioned Trump talking to any world leaders other than those he has formally met with after he was elected.

Quote:
That someone in his dislike for Trump is happy to sabotage American foreign relationships so the press can publish that Trump hang the telephone on the Australia Premier is disgraceful. Or how they reported Trump not wanting to uphold the Obama deal to take some refugees, while the press tip toed over the issue of how Australia treats those refugees is not right nor objective.


If that's what you're talking about, I'd think the leak came from within his own staff. Possibly to pre-empt a statement by the Australian PM. Not sure where that came from.

I generally don't agree with leaks to the press over simple "newsworthy" or "headline grabbing" content that's just there for its titillation value. But, I have to say that the U.S. President is not a King and those who serve the President are not slaves. If they feel something isn't right, they might very well "leak" that information.

Here's an article on it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-gday-mate-on-call-with-australian-pm-trump-badgers-and-brags/2017/02/01/88a3bfb0-e8bf-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html

It appears that the information, likely the transcript of the call, was included in a briefing given to "Senior U.S. Officials." (Maybe the State Department?) From there, it made its way outside.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Santi
Moderator (DevNet)
Moderator (DevNet)

MEDALMEDALMEDAL

Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 3116 on topic
Location: UK
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 17. Feb 17, 07:00    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Morkonan wrote:
I haven't checked the news in the last few hours, but there's no evidence that has been presented that any of the conversations were recorded.


Washington Post wrote:
For Yates and other officials, concerns about the communications peaked in the days after the Obama administration on Dec. 29 announced measures to punish Russia for what it said was the Kremlin’s interference in the election in an attempt to help Trump.

After the sanctions were rolled out, the Obama administration braced itself for the Russian retaliation. To the surprise of many U.S. officials, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on Dec. 30 that there would be no response. Trump praised the decision on Twitter.

Intelligence analysts began to search for clues that could help explain Putin’s move. The search turned up Kislyak’s communications, which the FBI routinely monitors, and the phone call in question with Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general with years of intelligence experience.

[The fall of Michael Flynn: A timeline]

From that call and subsequent intercepts, FBI agents wrote a secret report summarizing ­Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_flynn-0818pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ff23d3f33907


Santi wrote:
All this leaked private conversations between Trump and other world leaders by the press, are destabilization's tactics in my book, it is some serious irresponsible stuff to do.


Morkonan wrote:
What leaked private conversations are you talking about? Has there been some release of transcripts or recordings of these conversations you're talking about? As far as I know, nobody has mentioned Trump talking to any world leaders other than those he has formally met with after he was elected.

If that's what you're talking about, I'd think the leak came from within his own staff. Possibly to pre-empt a statement by the Australian PM. Not sure where that came from.

I generally don't agree with leaks to the press over simple "newsworthy" or "headline grabbing" content that's just there for its titillation value. But, I have to say that the U.S. President is not a King and those who serve the President are not slaves. If they feel something isn't right, they might very well "leak" that information.

Here's an article on it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-gday-mate-on-call-with-australian-pm-trump-badgers-and-brags/2017/02/01/88a3bfb0-e8bf-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html
It appears that the information, likely the transcript of the call, was included in a briefing given to "Senior U.S. Officials." (Maybe the State Department?) From there, it made its way outside.


Surely you have seem the video in that article and what the Australian prime minister have to say about the leaked information regarding a private call between him and Trump. "This conversations are conducted candidly, frankly, ahh privately" and pretty much lost for words because he has been shafted by some "senior US officials" that are not happy with Trump.


_________________
A por ellos que son pocos y cobardes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Masterbagger





Joined: 14 Oct 2014
Posts: 4 on topic
Location: AZ, USA
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 17. Feb 17, 07:12    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Golden_Gonads wrote:

What liberties did you lose then? I mean between them, Clinton and Obama had 16 years in power, so... What was taken off you?


I'm a gun owner. My individual freedom and the politics of the democrat party can't coexist. They will never accept that people can make their own decisions to be armed or not and that people don't need government permission to do it. That sentiment might not translate well outside of red state America.


_________________
Who made that man a gunner?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
philip_hughes





Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 2074 on topic
Location: In a battered urn amongst the towels at the bottom of egosofts laundry chute (Sydney branch)
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 17. Feb 17, 07:28    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Masterbagger wrote:
Golden_Gonads wrote:

What liberties did you lose then? I mean between them, Clinton and Obama had 16 years in power, so... What was taken off you?


I'm a gun owner. My individual freedom and the politics of the democrat party can't coexist. They will never accept that people can make their own decisions to be armed or not and that people don't need government permission to do it. That sentiment might not translate well outside of red state America.


Yes. I've met a few Americans of both political persuasions over the last few years- as an aside, I was in the states when Obama was elected. The whole gun thing is completely incomprehensible to outsiders, but i do understand its important to certain sections of the US. I also watched the political discourse between the Republicans and the Democrats. It soon became obvious to me that both sides of the fence were much more passionate about their party than people outside the states tend to be. I recall my first day in nebraska, taking a share cab to my hotel and watching the Republican cab driver duke it out verbally with a Democrat passenger. It was amazing.

On the night of the election the guys from the USDA had a party. Both sides were invited. The Republicans were gracious in defeat, the Democrats were sympathetic to the Republicans, but elsewhere it was very tense.

Outsiders may not appreciate how important the chosen party is to the americans who are on this forum. We have a little fun and it is an oppertunity to put our case forward on what we think are important topics, to the yanks it is much more serious. That's why the tone in some of the posts here is a little frosty.


_________________
Split now give me death? Nah. Just give me your ship.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Usenko
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)



Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 514 on topic

Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 17. Feb 17, 08:08    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Masterbagger wrote:
Golden_Gonads wrote:

What liberties did you lose then? I mean between them, Clinton and Obama had 16 years in power, so... What was taken off you?


I'm a gun owner. My individual freedom and the politics of the democrat party can't coexist. They will never accept that people can make their own decisions to be armed or not and that people don't need government permission to do it. That sentiment might not translate well outside of red state America.


I think there is a serious disconnect here. To most of us outside the USA, the freedom to own something doesn't preclude sensible controls.

I own a car. The list of provisos and requirements on that are long enough to fill an entire book. To register the car requires an annual inspection carried out by authorised people. Once I reach a certain age, I'll have to pass a medical to be legally able to drive. And of course, if I drive on the right hand side of the road, Constable Plod will have something to say about it. Yet in all that it would not occur to me to suggest that my rights to own a car and drive it have been in any way infringed.

I think this is the difficulty we have in understanding the American situation. It seems bizarre that people oppose [sensible] regulation of guns, and the continual repeats that the rights "shall not be infringed" seem to have nothing to do with the case (see above regarding cars). To us it doesn't sound free, just badly organised.

There is a very real difference with how we see the world.


_________________
Morkonan wrote:
What really happened isn't as exciting. Putin flexed his left thigh during his morning ride on a flying bear, right after beating fifty Judo blackbelts, which he does upon rising every morning. (Not that Putin sleeps, it's just that he doesn't want to make others feel inadequate.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
philip_hughes





Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 2074 on topic
Location: In a battered urn amongst the towels at the bottom of egosofts laundry chute (Sydney branch)
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 17. Feb 17, 08:23    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Usenko wrote:
Masterbagger wrote:
Golden_Gonads wrote:

What liberties did you lose then? I mean between them, Clinton and Obama had 16 years in power, so... What was taken off you?


I'm a gun owner. My individual freedom and the politics of the democrat party can't coexist. They will never accept that people can make their own decisions to be armed or not and that people don't need government permission to do it. That sentiment might not translate well outside of red state America.


I think there is a serious disconnect here. To most of us outside the USA, the freedom to own something doesn't preclude sensible controls.

I own a car. The list of provisos and requirements on that are long enough to fill an entire book. To register the car requires an annual inspection carried out by authorised people. Once I reach a certain age, I'll have to pass a medical to be legally able to drive. And of course, if I drive on the right hand side of the road, Constable Plod will have something to say about it. Yet in all that it would not occur to me to suggest that my rights to own a car and drive it have been in any way infringed.

I think this is the difficulty we have in understanding the American situation. It seems bizarre that people oppose [sensible] regulation of guns, and the continual repeats that the rights "shall not be infringed" seem to have nothing to do with the case (see above regarding cars). To us it doesn't sound free, just badly organised.

There is a very real difference with how we see the world.


Its not just guns Usenko.

There is a divide between americans over the use of seat belts, speed limits, healthcare, company tax. .. the list goes on. The specific problem is a foil for civil rights. Each law is considered an imposition on those rights. They then bring in the forefathers. They are super concerned about protecting what their ancestors fought and died for. Whether it makes sense in the modern context is of secondary concern. It sounds wacky but it is logical from their point of view. If you factor in the importance of legacy to the US, then a whole lot of strange sounding arguments are comprehensible.


_________________
Split now give me death? Nah. Just give me your ship.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Golden_Gonads



MEDALMEDAL

Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 705 on topic
Location: England
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 17. Feb 17, 13:39    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Masterbagger wrote:
I'm a gun owner. My individual freedom and the politics of the democrat party can't coexist. They will never accept that people can make their own decisions to be armed or not and that people don't need government permission to do it. That sentiment might not translate well outside of red state America.


There is no chance that even if Democrats won the Presidency and had control of Congress that they'd be able to ban guns. There are too many people like yourself who demand gun ownership as a basic right for that to happen.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Morkonan





Joined: 25 Sep 2011
Posts: 1420 on topic

Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 17. Feb 17, 15:31    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Santi wrote:
Surely you have seem the video in that article and what the Australian prime minister have to say about the leaked information regarding a private call between him and Trump. "This conversations are conducted candidly, frankly, ahh privately" and pretty much lost for words because he has been shafted by some "senior US officials" that are not happy with Trump.


No, I don't usually watch embedded videos in print news stories.

I do, however, need to give some context for my statement - It was referring to the calls between Trump's Campaign Staff and Russian intelligence/other contacts that were noticed by U.S. Intelligence as being worrying.

As far as a post-election conversation between Trump and the Australian P.M., a transcript or otherwise detailed report was provided to "Senior U.S. Officials" by the Trump administration, itself, as part of a brief. That's sensible, since State department and other officials who have to deal with foreign policy are certainly on a "need to know" basis.

I have since learned, however, that Intelligence agencies may have been monitoring or even recording any intercepted communications with certain foreign intelligence targets. This is "routine" and even friendly nations monitor each other's officials whenever they can. So, it's very possible that in the act of monitoring Russian targets, they could have recorded certain conversations with Trump Campaign staff. There is no report, however, that states that any of the contents of these communications is known. That is what I was referring to. Sorry for any confusion.

Masterbagger wrote:
I'm a gun owner. My individual freedom and the politics of the democrat party can't coexist. They will never accept that people can make their own decisions to be armed or not and that people don't need government permission to do it. That sentiment might not translate well outside of red state America.


I wouldn't take it that far. I'm, of course, a defender of the Second Amendment, but there has never been any move by the Democrats to repeal it. Yes, they have championed changes in gun laws that would, effectively, outlaw the purchase of certain types of firearms and accessories.

However, to date, none of this aside from the "Assault Weapon Ban", which had zero effect at all in reducing any firearm crime, including those committed with assault weapons, has ever really been acted upon. (Magazine limits are a possibility, but those vary by State.)

In short - This whole thing about "gun control" is smoke. Pro-Gun-Control Political Groups, like the Democrats, use it as a rallying cry for their more extreme members and Anti-Gun-Control Political Groups use it as a rallying cry for their own more extreme members. It's all B.S., to be honest...

The subject of Gun Control issues, with certain very, very, limited portions that do not threaten the Second Amendment at all, is a "Political Chew Toy."

philip_hughes wrote:
...Outsiders may not appreciate how important the chosen party is to the americans who are on this forum. We have a little fun and it is an oppertunity to put our case forward on what we think are important topics, to the yanks it is much more serious. That's why the tone in some of the posts here is a little frosty.


Do not forget that political parties in the U.S. on either side of any issue one cares to pick have been actively promoting extremism in order to secure bases of staunch support. The same parties that are supposed to work together in "politics" actively promote "conflict" as a very cheap way to shore up their base.

This certainly has an effect on many Americans when it comes down to discussing certain issues that the political groups have emphasized in their rhetoric.

Most of what I see anyone arguing/talking about or any political candidate attempting to gain support for is... bull@$^ and a twelve-year-old with interwebz access could see these political dog-and-pony shows for what they are. In my opinion, of course. Smile

Usenko wrote:
I think there is a serious disconnect here. To most of us outside the USA, the freedom to own something doesn't preclude sensible controls.

I own a car. The list of provisos and requirements on that are long enough to fill an entire book. To register the car requires an annual inspection carried ....

I think this is the difficulty we have in understanding the American situation. It seems bizarre that people oppose [sensible] regulation of guns, and the continual repeats that the rights "shall not be infringed" seem to have nothing to do with the case (see above regarding cars). To us it doesn't sound free, just badly organised....


The idea is that one should vigorously defend one's constitutionally guaranteed Rights, lest one find oneself without them, one day, due to complacency to defend them...

What if Australia decided that since a lot of people get into accidents with pickup trucks (utes!) that citizens could no longer own them? You don't "need" a ute, do you? But, some people might need them, like some types of farming, perhaps, or certain light construction workers. OK, fine, these people could own them, but only use them while performing their job, etc... There ya go! That's "sensible legislation" right? But, what does it do to your constitutionally guaranteed "Right" to own a personal vehicle? It reduces it, right? And, what about the next law that limits your right to own a vehicle? Well, precedent has been set, so it's much less difficult to pass laws that restrict vehicle ownership, now, right?

Eventually, you end up owning exactly the kind of vehicle that some third-party, with the most political power, thinks you should be "allowed" to own or, worse, encouraged to own for their own selfish reasons.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mightysword





Joined: 10 Mar 2004
Posts: 2124 on topic

Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 17. Feb 17, 16:47    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

philip_hughes wrote:
...Outsiders may not appreciate how important the chosen party is to the americans who are on this forum. We have a little fun and it is an oppertunity to put our case forward on what we think are important topics, to the yanks it is much more serious. That's why the tone in some of the posts here is a little frosty.


It's because that the majority of the posts are pretty much self-satisfastion and often lack any kind of quantifiable argument. The other problem is that, it seems a lot of people from other countries seem to love making the case of "this is an American problem or just America being America" while seem to be oblivious to the reality of their very own country, at the very least not many better and IMO some are even worse. Before one make a laugh at other expense, I do believe they should check to see if they're beyond the joke. To put it plainly and bluntly - it's hypocrisy. I always say it's easier to deal with an a-double-s over a hypocrite.

It's certainly not due to the lack of trying, but I believe it's at the point that if one has to ask the question, then most likely one will not be able or accept the answer anyway, after all it's not like the answer is not obvious, one just simply don't want to accept its reality. Wink


Without the meaning of taking a shot at the poster, let me demonstrate a case of what I mean by the lacking of quantifiable argument and full of self-satisfaction. Take note that in fact I consider this one is one of the better or less worse than the majority of other posts.

Usenko wrote:

Depends. He SHOULDN'T be able to do things that aren't in the long term interest of his country.

And let's be clear here - that is the problem Trump has. A lot of the actions he has taken are likely to be popular because they look good superficially, but ultimately they are damaging to the USA and its interests.

In a Westminster democracy, there are better checks and balances. It's not possible to act as a dictator (ironically, given that the US system was originally designed to prevent just such an occurrence as this; to be fair, our system was designed after having a good hard look at the USA and the UK, so there's that).


- One: long term interest of the country is something only obvious after the fact in 20/20 hindsight. Each party will have a different vision for what they consider the best course for then countries. Historically they have both proven to be success at various point as much as shitting their own pants at various point. It's the selfish thought that only my vision is the acceptable one and the other guy has no other purpose than screwing the country is what make politic so toxic.

- Second: I would like you to quantify what you mean by "a lot". You're making it sound like Trump are doing or already done a lot of thing while the fact is, he has NOT done anything. His first major directive (travel ban) are blocked by the court, his nomination battered by the Senate, and not many in congress fancies his idea of building a wall, at least the way he visioned it. Obama care will be fixed, it has to be since it already shows sign of being unsustainable even before Trump in office, but it won't happen overnight.

- Third: coming from the second point, this essentially our system of check and balance are working as intended. Assuming that Trump wants to be come a dictator (which I don't think he is, but that doesn't fix the narrative), a lot of people seem to find self-satisfaction and run away with their idea that Trump is becoming a dictator. No, there is a huge difference between someone "want" to be come a dictator and someone actually are "allowed to become" a dictator. Our system can't change what an individual want to think, but we can allow or not allow what one to do, that's check and balance.

- Fourth: it doesn't matter what kind of prefix you want to append to the word democracy, or whatever philosophy angle you want to take, a democracy is a democracy. In modern time, America was the first democracy when the majority of the world were still stuck in monarchy, so in sense, American Democracy might seem to be outdated and unreasonable comparing to the more modern "refined copy" of it, however it's because I believe it's because American Democracy is one in the rawest sense. I have always say whatever you want to think about Trump, the fact that someone like him manage to be elected president is the best example of Democracy, irregardless of the consequence. Some vote with their hearts, some vote with brain, some vote with both, some vote with neither, it doesn't matter, in a true democracy every person is offered the same vote, and a dog can run for the office if people want to vote for it. (I wonder if Morkonan actually voted for his dog). In fact, a selection or screening of "good candidates" is a very "undemocratic" process, at least by our standard.

- And fifth: lastly, every single of these point I just made, I would like people to look at their own country and see if theirs don't have the same problem. Can someone here say it to me with a straight face that their country have never elect someone undesirable in hindsight? Any country that has not ever their far right or far left movement, or both? How many countries that are currently not feeling the wind of the populist movement ATM? I think within last year there are countries that made a worse mess than America and have far more long term impact on the world, so it's kinda bemusing citizen of those countries making fun of America.

But yes, it seems people want to make the case this is an American thing, I wonder if they do that as a subconscious defense mechanism, a psychology barrier to help them deny the very reality of their own country. It's a rather typical human behavior: an easy way to make you feel better after finding yourself in a bad situation is to look at another person and believe he/she is worse. Razz

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grim Lock





Joined: 21 Jan 2009



PostPosted: Fri, 17. Feb 17, 18:13    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

From where i live this is very much an american thing, yes populist movements are on the rise, however in our mult-party coalition system of government its pretty much impossible for the extreme right or left to make a power play like trump is making.

And well in the countries surrounding us and our own the politicians heading up the populist front at least still are actual polliticians, not power-horny bussiness men that haven't a clue of how to work politics.

Edit: just watched the press conference. Wow, i'm lost for words.


_________________
Megatron: "You don't scare me, you mechanical throwbacks!"
GrimLock: "Good Megatron, we love stupid enemies"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BugMeister



MEDAL

Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3704 on topic
Location: elsewhere..
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 17. Feb 17, 22:34    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

- and you say there's no connection between Trump and Farage?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/17/a-fabulous-press-conference-who-are-trumps-british-cheerleaders

- must be just me, then.. Thinking


_________________
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! Very Happy Thumb up
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grim Lock





Joined: 21 Jan 2009



PostPosted: Fri, 17. Feb 17, 22:59    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Not sure if that's directed at me bugmeister, but im not british Smile In our country we've got wilders heading up the Trumpet style populism, however he's losing votes currently, one of the many reasons for that is because he said he liked trump so much, so he's not going there anymore. So apparantly at least his followers aren't as nuts as he expected them to be.

Edit: And Trump wouldn't like him at all anyway, he might be on the far right where it concerns immigration, foreigners and crime, but when it comes to finances he's on the far left end of the spectrum and socialist as hell.


_________________
Megatron: "You don't scare me, you mechanical throwbacks!"
GrimLock: "Good Megatron, we love stupid enemies"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
philip_hughes





Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 2074 on topic
Location: In a battered urn amongst the towels at the bottom of egosofts laundry chute (Sydney branch)
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 17. Feb 17, 23:34    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

Usenkos assertion that trump had made long term problems stands I'm afraid. The phone call with our pm has done massive damage. Trump has also started the process of tearing up our free trade deal, specifically designed to contain China. Last week, our foreign minister made open overtures to China. If the us aus alliance falls- and there are those in government who are actively campaigning for this- then aus will have no choice to side with China and the us will have no hope of limiting any expansion. This would have massive impacts to the stability of the world.


_________________
Split now give me death? Nah. Just give me your ship.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Santi
Moderator (DevNet)
Moderator (DevNet)

MEDALMEDALMEDAL

Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 3116 on topic
Location: UK
Thank you for registering your game
PostPosted: Fri, 17. Feb 17, 23:53    Post subject: Reply with quote Print

This is what I do not like, agencies like Reuters that have top journalists and a track record of unbiased, several sourced and independent news reporting, falling for the fake news format.

This video is fake news: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-scene-idUSKBN15V2XE

This is real news: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/feb/17/donald-trumps-press-conference-in-full-video

A 1 hour 16 minutes press conference, compressed to a 40 seconds video to justify a grab attention headline.

philip_hughes wrote:
Usenkos assertion that trump had made long term problems stands I'm afraid. The phone call with our pm has done massive damage. Trump has also started the process of tearing up our free trade deal, specifically designed to contain China.


The PTT was dead from the moment China decided not to join in. Obama pretty much gave up on it because without China it was pointless to carry on.


_________________
A por ellos que son pocos y cobardes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 108, 109, 110 ... 129, 130, 131  Next
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
Control Panel
Login Data
The time now is Fri, 24. Mar 17, 12:14

All times are GMT + 2 Hours


Board Security

Copyright © EGOSOFT 1989-2017
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Template created by Avatar & BurnIt!
Debug: page generation = 1.22887 seconds, sql queries = 29