Jump to content

LYING MEDIA!


Recommended Posts

Trump may be making a big mistake by spending time tweeting over the likes of these morons (even if they keep relentlessly attacking him)  - but he's entitled to the same rights as everyone else, whether he's president or not.  He has the right to express himself.

He's not the first President to have had a war of words with the media, either! 

And before we start raising hell about these so-called expectations from leaders as to how women are regarded - let's not forget the actions of previous presidents like John Kennedy (and his strings of mistresses), and Bill Clinton's (strings of sex controversies), and his Hillary's reaction to women who complained!

 

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2017 at 1:05 PM, Argus said:

And democracy sucks - except for every other system. The mainstream media is by far and away the best, most diverse, most intelligent, knowledgeable and unbiased collection of news information. Those weird, breathless little bloggers and nut job conspiracy sites don't relate news, they relate fictions.

You still believing the Russians gave Trump the win?  You sure it was not because Hillary botched her own campaign every time she opened her mouth. That's a conspiracy theory. Nothing credible regarding the evidence on the hacks have come through. Apparently even a veteran producer at CNN admitted it was non-story, or like the other CNN 'reporter' guy said a 'nothing burger'. 

I don't have to go to the crazy sites, I can just read most MSM articles and read the contradictions within those articles.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2017 at 11:05 AM, Argus said:

And democracy sucks - except for every other system.

If we had a democracy, you might be right. The US is a totalitarian theocracy controlled by the right wing and far right wing parties. 

Quote

The mainstream media is by far and away the best, most diverse, most intelligent, knowledgeable and unbiased collection of news information.

If that had any truth to it you would be willing to debate these "truths" they advance. But you are as big or bigger a coward that they are.

Quote

Those weird, breathless little bloggers and nut job conspiracy sites don't relate news, they relate fictions.

Again, if that had any truth to it you would be willing to debate this. But you are as big or bigger a coward that they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2017 at 4:12 PM, GostHacked said:

You still believing the Russians gave Trump the win?  You sure it was not because Hillary botched her own campaign every time she opened her mouth.

I believe both contributed to Trump's win. She ran a dumb campaign, but the constant harassment from the Russians sure helped him out.

On 7/8/2017 at 4:12 PM, GostHacked said:

That's a conspiracy theory. Nothing credible regarding the evidence on the hacks have come through.

Uh nothing credible? Every intelligence agency agrees it was the Russians. There is no contrary evidence. When Trump proposed the US and Russians get together to fight cyber attacks the ridicule and scorn coming from his own party forced him to backtrack in a hurry.

And as for collusion, well, we're starting to see the evidence coming out now, aren't we.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, betsy said:

Where?  What evidence?

I guess you haven't been following the news of late ?  Don Jr. admitted pursuing assistance from an agent of the Russian government to get dirt on Clinton.  That in itself is a federal crime, and makes Don Jr. the 6th or 7th team Trump person to change his story on meeting with Russians.  It also makes the claim that there's nothing at all there to be completely false.

Were the Russians behind the hacking ?  That's unproven and would be hard to prove.  

Did team Trump break the law ?  Probably but this might not be enough to warrant charges from what I have read.

Is it shocking ?  Not so much, but it's enough to keep this in the news for months or years.

But to deny that the team colluded is to deny reality, at this point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I guess you haven't been following the news of late ?  Don Jr. admitted pursuing assistance from an agent of the Russian government to get dirt on Clinton.

 

Yes, I've been following.  If someone says they've got dirt on your political opponent, who wouldn't want to hear about it?  You think Hillary wouldn't have done the same thing? 

 

 

Quote

That in itself is a federal crime,

I've yet to have that officially confirmed.  That's the narrative that the anti-Trump media wants to stoke, and that the anti-Trumps want to latch on.

 

 

Quote

and makes Don Jr. the 6th or 7th team Trump person to change his story on meeting with Russians.  It also makes the claim that there's nothing at all there to be completely false.

Change his story?  Depends on the context of his statements.  However, the fact that he released the string of email conversation, backs his story!

 

 

Quote

But to deny that the team colluded is to deny reality, at this point.

Collusion is defined as cooperating or an agreement for an illegal purpose.

  Unless there's any convictions that what they did was illegal, you can't just say it's collusion!  That isn't reality.       That would be "wishful thinking," or "jumping the gun." 

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, betsy said:

Yes, I've been following.  If someone says they've got dirt on your political opponent, who wouldn't want to hear about it?  You think Hillary wouldn't have done the same thing? 

Maybe she would have.  I'll bet she would have been smarter than to send her stupid kid to the meeting with her son-in-law and campaign manager, not that Don Sr. did that.
 

Quote

Change his story?  Depends on the context of his statements.  However, the fact that he released the string of email conversation, backs his story!

 

His newly altered story, yes.

Quote

Collusion is defined as cooperating or an agreement for an illegal purpose.

The first definition I got was: "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others."

I don't think it has to be illegal to be consider collusion, and I have never heard that.  But I won't argue word definitions here.  Bill Clinton tried to argue about the definition of "is" and I didn't defend him at that time either.  If I had, I would have been one of those "my party, right or wrong" people that you appear to be.

If you care to defend what you wouldn't defend Trump for, and post it here, some of us can bookmark that post, then ask you again after Trump is shown to have done that thing.  Then we can see what your character is.  Thanks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe she would have.  I'll bet she would have been smarter than to send her stupid kid to the meeting with her son-in-law and campaign manager, not that Don Sr. did that.
 

His newly altered story, yes.

The first definition I got was: "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others."

I don't think it has to be illegal to be consider collusion, and I have never heard that.  But I won't argue word definitions here.  Bill Clinton tried to argue about the definition of "is" and I didn't defend him at that time either.  If I had, I would have been one of those "my party, right or wrong" people that you appear to be.

If you care to defend what you wouldn't defend Trump for, and post it here, some of us can bookmark that post, then ask you again after Trump is shown to have done that thing.  Then we can see what your character is.  Thanks.

 

 

If there is collusion -  the investigative boards will definitely inform the public about it.  Anything being said about collusion right now, is merely based on the fact that there are elements out there, too, that has been actively trying to derail the presidency.   To say that there is collusion is pure assumption.  I don't wanna split hair on mere assumption. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2017 at 1:23 PM, Argus said:

I believe both contributed to Trump's win. She ran a dumb campaign, but the constant harassment from the Russians sure helped him out.

Uh nothing credible? Every intelligence agency agrees it was the Russians. There is no contrary evidence. When Trump proposed the US and Russians get together to fight cyber attacks the ridicule and scorn coming from his own party forced him to backtrack in a hurry.

And as for collusion, well, we're starting to see the evidence coming out now, aren't we.

 

I am still waiting for that evidence, like I am waiting for Betsy to give a evidence on God n stuff.  Never going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-07-12 at 7:10 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Don Jr. admitted pursuing assistance from an agent of the Russian government to get dirt on Clinton.  That in itself is a federal crime,

I don't think so, but if you have evidence that it is please show it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I was questioning your assertion that it's a federal crime. Is it?

To be honest, when I wrote that, I had read an LA Times article that said it was, but I also saw something on FOX that said it's not.  From the exerpt below, I would say that it is however I will admit that they could argue that 'anything of value' is supposed to be a material bribe.

So I will change my position to say it *may* be a federal crime.

Reference:

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-russians-legal-analysis-20170711-story.html

Quote

Several campaign funding experts say the emails strongly suggest that Donald Trump Jr. violated federal election laws by arranging a high-level campaign meeting with a Russian lawyer who promised to reveal damaging information about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Federal law makes it a crime for any person to “solicit, accept or receive” a contribution or “anything of value” from a foreign person for a U.S. political campaign or “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.”

Trump Jr. and his supporters scoff at the notion that having a meeting to learn more about your rival in political campaign would violate federal law, insisting the encounter yielded nothing of value. And even if it had, they say, it wouldn’t be the type of money or bribes usually covered under the campaign law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/support-for-nato-mission-1.4203822

 

Quote

As Canadian troops begin their mission in Latvia — a deterrence operation, intended to send a strong message to Russia about interfering in neighbouring NATO member countries — an invisible battle for hearts and minds will be happening back at home.

The goal: destroy public support for the mission in Canada.

Russia isn't likely to engage in conventional warfare anytime soon, but it does have a number of information warfare tools it can use to test NATO's resolve and capabilities without sparking a broader conflict.

Many of us have already heard about these tools taking the form of fake news, online trolls, data leaks and targeted digital surveillance of troops and their families back home. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Our government has their own agenda and their own propaganda. Anyone even aware of Canada sending troops to Latvia? Instead of explaining their mission and how Latvia requested the help, the article goes on about Russian propaganda attempts.  It's like reading 1984 with real world events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2017 at 8:01 AM, GostHacked said:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/support-for-nato-mission-1.4203822

 

Our government has their own agenda and their own propaganda. Anyone even aware of Canada sending troops to Latvia? Instead of explaining their mission and how Latvia requested the help, the article goes on about Russian propaganda attempts.  It's like reading 1984 with real world events.

It's the same old, same old with these fools. You know the ones that keep shouting the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming run for the hills while you still can. The globalist elite want a war with Russia and is trying every thing within it's power to try and get that war started. We have more to worry about China than Russia. China is pretty much invading Canada and buying up whatever resources and property it can. The Russians are not. The amount of fools that still will believe all this Russian nonsense is bloody sad indeed. And those fools have not once proven anything yet about Russian collusion. They just go on and on and on and on and on for nothing. Pathetic indeed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-07-14 at 8:01 AM, GostHacked said:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/support-for-nato-mission-1.4203822

 

Our government has their own agenda and their own propaganda. Anyone even aware of Canada sending troops to Latvia? Instead of explaining their mission and how Latvia requested the help, the article goes on about Russian propaganda attempts.  It's like reading 1984 with real world events.

Old news. It was announced last February if you were paying attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2017 at 3:51 PM, hot enough said:

That is what conservatives call free enterprise until it happens with people they don't like. 

What people do conservatives not like? 

Personally, I don't believe that anyone likes anyone. It's a world that is all about me-me-and more me, and nothing more. Just saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, taxme said:

What people do conservatives not like? 

You only have to look at the history of Canada/US to see that. Chinese, Italians, Irish, Japanese, ... . 

taxme said: China is pretty much invading Canada and buying up whatever resources and property it can.

China 0.8% USA 42....%

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You only have to look at the history of Canada/US to see that. Chinese, Italians, Irish, Japanese, ... . 

taxme said: China is pretty much invading Canada and buying up whatever resources and property it can.

China 0.8% USA 42....%

 

 

You are talking about events that happened in the past. They are not happening today. Why do people like you always want to bring up the past is beyond me. But you should be happy to hear and know that the ancestors of the people who you say are responsible for things done in the past to others are now on the receiving end, and slowly are being eliminated. Slowly but surely once the British traditions and heritage and culture has been erased by the far left winger liberal communists this country will become a third world cesspool. That should make people like you all jumping for joy. 

I think that it is higher than 0.8%. Asians have been responsible for the high cost of housing in the lower mainland of Vancouver by buying up whatever property they can get their Asian hands on. Americans own the big box stores, and some Americans own some property in Canada. I don't think that the Americans are responsible and are contributing to the high cost of housing in Vancouver. I have friend who lives in White Rock and Asian real estate agents are after him all the time to sell his property, no doubt for his Asian clientele. Asians have no problem paying millions to buy a home in Vancouver and surrounding suburbs. Lets just blame the Americans for the high cost of real estate, and who are buying up all the resources they can. Utter nonsense. Moo.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, taxme said:

Asians have been responsible for the high cost of housing in the lower mainland of Vancouver by buying up whatever property they can get their Asian hands on.

Here we go again. You conservatives always scream free enterprise until it's a racial group that you don't like. 

Quote

I think that it is higher than 0.8%.

It matter not at all what you think. What matters are the facts. 

http://www.international.gc.ca/economist-economiste/assets/pdfs/Data/investments-investissements/FDI_by_Country/CDIA_stocks_by_Country-ENG.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...