Trump

felter · 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.

Masterbagger · 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.

felter · 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.

Masterbagger · 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?

fiksal · 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

Was Clinton behind the guilty pleas too?

As they say, Lock em up

Morkonan · 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 · 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.

felter · 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.”

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

@ felter
Wish they'd stop playing around and pull him over.

Chips · 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

Brain is definitely slower as I approach 40

Hank001 · 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.

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

fiksal · 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 · 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.

fiksal · 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.

Observe · 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).

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Fri, 21. Sep 18, 03:17

fiksal:

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.

You have to admit Trump's behavoir was out of character. I think the Speaker of the House finally got though to him that half the electorate are female... Or just watch his mouth till after the elections or we'll revisit the 25th Amendment. Whatever the reason it's a welcome relief. Bet he's back to his old self sooner than McConnell would like.

Masterbagger · Post by **Masterbagger** » Fri, 21. Sep 18, 03:44

Hank001 wrote:
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

I don't think the objective of sitting on this woman's story for months and quietly prepping to reveal her was to present a credible accusation. It was meant to derail the hearings and taint Kavanaugh. It doesn't have to stand up to scrutiny to do that.

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Fri, 21. Sep 18, 03:52

Masterbagger:

I don't think the objective of sitting on this woman's story for months and quietly prepping to reveal her was to present a credible accusation. It was meant to derail the hearings and taint Kavanaugh. It doesn't have to stand up to scrutiny to do that.

You know, I'm going to have to agree with here. Her NPR interview gave me the impression she slipped a bit and went off script. That's why I posted the link as soon as NPR posted the story. It's not making the Dems look good, that's for sure. High School for crying out loud?

fiksal · Post by **fiksal** » Fri, 21. Sep 18, 04:47

Also unless there's a clear crime that can be shown, it's super pointless. (But correct me if I missed something important)

Republicans will confirm him regardless of his behavior. He can be most morally bankrupt guy you have seen, or a terrible judge and it would not matter one bit. We know it, everyone knows it.

Hank001 wrote:fiksal:
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.
You have to admit Trump's behavoir was out of character. I think the Speaker of the House finally got though to him that half the electorate are female... Or just watch his mouth till after the elections or we'll revisit the 25th Amendment. Whatever the reason it's a welcome relief. Bet he's back to his old self sooner than McConnell would like.

Yep, he was out of his normal despicable character. It's still an eye rolling moment.

Observe · Post by **Observe** » Fri, 21. Sep 18, 18:13

Looks like the trade war with China is heating up. Walmart, Target and other retail stores are warning of impact on Christmas sales. Those companies have long been criticized for stocking their shelves with Chinese products.

Walmart is complaining that they have to buy bicycles (one example) from China, because there aren't enough of them being produced in the U.S. Good! Now perhaps we will start to see domestic re-industrialization. Opportunities for American manufacturing.

I don't see how this can end well for China. They have the most to lose economically. All they have to do, is roll back their global dominance, start playing fair and stop stealing our technology.

Should the tariffs go into effect, Walmart customers will face cost increases for essential items like car seats, cribs, backpacks, hats, pet products and bicycles,'' the retailer said. And there will be a domino effect. "Either consumers will pay more, suppliers will receive less, retail margins will be lower, or consumers will buy fewer products or forego purchases altogether

Nothing wrong with consumers stepping off the relentless consumer treadmill and buying less products. Perhaps people will start demanding quality products that last longer when they open their wallets.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

Trump