A gorilla would have more human rights than a LGBTQ+/transgender person. Fucken sick mate, tell me more about how conversion therapy is better than research for HIV/AIDS.
It’s like Darth Vader & Palpy, but in a reverse order (ofc Trump being Vader, in a sense he’s way tooooo much talk and no action and Pence being palsy in a way that he would stop feminism in it’s tracks feminism as in what it is defined as, equality for all ).
Normally I’d be like, 'yeah I could disagree with their policies, but sit down smash a few beers down and other stuff’, but honestly his stance is Hitler-tiered anti-humanitarianism.
Bruh, he ran the apprentice for years like sometimes the boardroom scenes were lit with 4 firings at the same time (I digress). It’s definitely something to do with his own advisors advising him to fire Comey at the wrong time.
I think that’s what they wanted in their own minds to happen, but the investigation just gained so much momentum and blew up in their face.
God damn you’ve just made me miss Kevin '07 - time to get the tissues out and put the old skool Biebs on for a quality ‘what could’ve been’ session.
If you go back to late 2016, Democrats had called for the dismissal of the FBI director in reaction to his handling of an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails amongst other things. But the media don’t tell you that to make Trump’s position look worse.
But I do agree, it was needed but the timing was very unfortunate for Trump.
Michael Flynn being investigated for his Russian connections before he was appointed by Trump is an obvious problem. Obama even warned Trump not to bring him onboard, yet Trump did so (presumably out of spite).[quote=“Firetorch, post:613, topic:1886”]
Macron met with Theresa May in 10 Downing St before the French election. Is Macron going to be investigated for…wait for it…contact with the British?!!..shock horror. It’s just so juvenile. The whole thing. Seriously.
[/quote]I get the feeling you’re boiling this down so much as to not understand nuance.
The British and the French have been allies for the last… 150 years? Them sharing secrets is not necessarily unprecedented, whereas Russia and the US have been historical adversaries since the end of the Second World War.
Even right now, the US and Russia are in serious disagreement about how to handle Syria. Russia wants to protect Assad and shore up its own interests in the region (namely a military port), while the US thinks Assad to be a war criminal and destabilising influence repressing his own people.
Trump sharing intelligence about Syria with Russia was, as @bacco007 said, not even shared with nations with whom the US has an intelligence-sharing arrangement with (UK, Australia, Canada, NZ). That brings into serious question the judgement of Trump. [quote=“TheHubMan, post:614, topic:1886”]
It’s like Darth Vader & Palpy, but in a reverse order (ofc Trump being Vader, in a sense he’s way tooooo much talk and no action and Pence being palsy in a way that he would stop feminism in it’s tracks
[/quote]
Have you ever heard the story of Darth Pence the Wise? It’s not a story the GOP would tell you.
Also one thing I also forgot was the Paul Manafort saga, Manafort being the head of Trump’s campaign until Russian ties brought him down.
Trump asking the Russians to hack Hillary’s emails, and then that coming true through the Russians leaking to Wikileaks.
There’s lots of crazy conspiracy theories going around (which I’m not buying), but there’s certainly enough Russia in this election to fill my Rassolnik bowl.
Well, you could start with the full extent of his ‘relationship’ with Russia (if he does indeed have one)
Does appointing a new FBI Director who could be more sympathetic to the Trump Administration have the potential to kick this whole matter into the long grass?
Except there hasnt exactly been a denial that it happened.
Comey hasnt exactly covered himself in glory as FBI Director (and that dates back before the election as well, his handling of black lives matter was pretty poor)
What is a “Russian connection”? Why is a “Russian connection” a problem? Is Rex Tillerson’s “Russian connection” a problem? If so, why the difference in treatment?
Actually, I’m not boiling down anything - I am FURTHER EXPANDING your logic to show you how ridiculous it is - YOU are boiling this down to the same old cliche that Russia are the bad guys. Remember this?
So one minute they’re adversaries. But then Obama says that’s dated 1980s policy. Then you tell me Obama warned Trump about Flynn. What’s the story? Is Obama a trusted source on Russia or not?
[quote=“pelican, post:616, topic:1886”]
The British and the French have been allies for the last… 150 years?[/quote]
Oh right. So you agree with me. Because before, you actually described what was being investigated as “meddling in the election”. You wouldn’t say Theresa May meddled in the French election, would you?
Even more reason for the US and Russia to cooperate when there are, at present, disagreements regarding important matters.
Actually, you and @bacco007 are wrong then, in that case. Here’s what a 5 Eyes alliance member actually says:
This is the stupidest one of all, and you know someone is scraping the bottom of the barrel when they mention it. Trump, as a showman, in view of the whole of the US, made a point that someone should find Hillary’s emails, and played on the fact it was well known at the time Russia disliked Hillary. The inference that this was some dodgy underhanded deal between Trump and Russia is laughable.
Yes. That was Trump’s aim in removing Comey. He thinks the Russia investigation is a waste of time and resources. Appointing a new FBI director is within his rights, and fulfills his aim of removing this whole ridiculous matter.
Because there is no need to deny it…? I’m not saying it’s false. I’m saying it’s accurate, was said, but doesn’t lead to the inference that po-faced media like the NYT and Post are making.
Oh and whatever the status of the relationship between the US and Russia before the election…Trump campaigned on a platform of closer co-operation with Russia. There was no secret about this. It was policy. He therefore has a clear mandate in this regard. So, stating that they’re ‘adversaries’ is stuck in the past…if the ALP campaigned on a platform of recognising Palestine as a state during an Australian election…that’s what people vote for. They have the mandate to do so. To then suggest…oooh a Labor politician had contact with the Palestinians!! would be just ridiculous.
Ya, in 2012. Remember that ISIS wasn’t a thing then so Russia was well out of the way geopolitically. Further, 2012 was an election with two relatively strong candidates. Putin had much less to destabilise against either Obama or Romney, so regardless of who won, he had no motive. 2016 was opportune in that it had two historically weak candidates.
Regardless, you can argue to the moon and back but it won’t change that even some Republicans aren’t happy with how Trump has handled Russia (McCain).
Look, I’ll boil it down for you to this essentially - left wing media like the Post and the NYT are going to be bashing Trump based on ‘leaks’ every day of his Presidency. Some on the right may be fooled and think there is legitimately a problem that needs to be recitified (see the NYT article the other day on how Republicans should abandon Trump before 2018 - gee, didn’t see that one coming from the Times).
These are people who don’t yet realise the new ball game in town. The media acts as an opposition to any politician espousing right wing policies. Now it’s Trump. Next it’s Pence. After that it will be Mr RepublicanSenator#1. After that Mrs RepublicanFuturePresidentialCandidate. In other words, there will always be rabid, over the top criticism no matter what. It’s the story in the US. It’s the story here.
Turnbull foolishly fed the beast leaks every day of Abbott’s time as PM. Right wing politicians then dumped a PM actually elected with a huge majority after less than 1 term, on the basis of left wing whinging.
Theresa May is finding something similar on a much smaller scale at the present - a left-wing Tory manifesto, designed to silence the critics that the Tories are somehow the nasty party. Reality? Massive downgrade in polling support, after relentless media and Labour criticism, while upsetting actual Conservative voters.
It’s amusing, a newspaper runs stories you can’t outright dismiss, so it’s “leftist propaganda” and “fake news”. It must be liberating to waive away any critical enquiry by outright ignoring what’s being said, and instead criticising who’s saying it.
Ultimately The Washington Post and New York Times have reinvested in critical journalism and holding those in power, those in the establishment, to account. I cannot see how that’s a bad thing, and I hope it continues into the future, Republican or Democratic.
I am curious though, who do you get your news from on a regular basis?
That’s the most stupid thing since TEN renewing tbl. News should be balanced, fair, criticism where it is needed and praise where it is deserved. What makes Left wing opinions so right? There are alot of people who support the right. Again, News should appeal to both wings.
That article doesn’t say anything to say that the information was or wasn’t shared with 5 eyes - in any case, would you expect our Government, who want the Trump administration to help us with the Refugee swap, to start saying stuff in the media that could be construed as going against the US?
You don’t think he has a bit of a conflict of interest there? Not to mention running the risk of perverting the course of justice
A bit like when Fox News basically turned bashing Obama into a sport?
At what point does it become a ‘legitimate’ problem? Politicians have been turfed for less than what we’ve seen in the last 130 odd days - nothing we’ve seen particularly in the last 10 days or so has exactly been refuted or rebuffed as incorrect
NYT broke the Hillary Clinton email scandal. They broke the Wiener scandal. Both are high-profile Democrats, and both were during the Obama administration. ““Liberal”” outlets were also scathing of a number of high-profile Obama failures, such as the Obamacare website failure. [quote=“Firetorch, post:629, topic:1886”]
this is a money making business targeted at liberal America.
[/quote]
Yes, and no one in the media business has ever made money off conservatives?
Well, this guy will disagree, as will this one, and this one, and this one, and this one. Don’t forget her. And lots of other ones too. Pretty funny that it was right-wing talkback which pioneered this partisan shit. Made your bed, now lie in it. [quote=“Firetorch, post:631, topic:1886”]
You and matlock can’t accept what I have been saying very clearly and simply for ages…left-leaning media needs to be treated as partisan as right-wing media like NewsCorp and FoxNews when it comes to politics these days.
[/quote]
But they’re not. The difference is that outlets like The New York Times aren’t biased toward ‘liberals’, they’re biased toward getting the most clicks. If Hillary had won, and then her administration turned out to be as big a clusterfuck as Trump’s has become, then I’m pretty sure NYT and WaPo would be both leaking heavily too. They’re two of the biggest newsrooms in America; if someone wants a leak published to as wide an audience as possible, they’ll leak to NYT.
Just because they’re publishing stuff which your side can’t quite reconcile with, doesn’t mean they’re biased. They’re simply doing their job, which is reporting the news.
You saying Fox News is the same as NYT is laughable. Had those Trump leaks gone to Fox, they would’ve been suppressed. Meanwhile, NYT broke the story which ultimately ruined Hillary’s career.
The Guardian is left wing but they’re openly so. [quote=“Firetorch, post:631, topic:1886”]
It becomes a legitimate problem when people don’t deal with the politics of the situation - for example, Trump was perfectly entitled to remove Comey - whether that was a smart move in whole, considering the field day the rabid left-wing press were going to have with it, is another story.
[/quote]
Trump obstructed justice. He fired Comey because of an on-going investigation which ultimately related back to Trump. That is an impeachable offence and probably a really good storyline for House of Cards.
It’s a page for publishing opinion pieces for the more radical views out there. Again, you’re just looking to confirm your own biases by seeking out the 1 article in hundreds posted daily which offends you. Your “critical analysis”, as with anyone, is skewed by personal, environmental and social biases you carry with you.
Ultimately, at the end of this all, you still haven’t provided any rundown of which sites and news organisations you frequently draw your news from. I did ask you nicely.
So your rants pro-Trump against their… articles? What exactly is ranting about this:
lol, Flynn broke the Logan Act. Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice. Just two examples of crimes which are already basically proven to have happened.
Another bombshell from WaPo. Trump allegedly tried to get the leaders of intelligence agencies to push back against the FBI’s investigation, but they refused.
