Trump

[DannyInvincible]

What the **** is he talking about?

Ha, I'm guessing that's rhetorical, but here's the context, just in case: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/us/politics/soldiers-widow-says-trump-struggled-to-remember-sgt-la-david-johnsons-name.html


The widow of one of four soldiers killed in Niger went on television on Monday to criticize President Trump for how he spoke to her during a condolence call last week, drawing a swift denial from Mr. Trump, who breathed new life into a bitter controversy that has transformed a tragedy into a political feud.

Myeshia Johnson, whose husband, Sgt. La David T. Johnson, was killed early this month in an attack that is under investigation by the United States military, said the president had blundered through the condolence call he made to her last week, only deepening her grief because he did not seem to know her husband’s name.

It's comical that Trump admits in the video above that his advisors put a chart with the soldier's name on it in front of him (Trump) during the call, presumably so that the klutz couldn't forget the name - a pretty straightforward one at that - and yet that is exactly what he did. Unbelievable.

Even if he had gotten the name right, it's an embarrassing admission to say that he had a chart in front of him. Genuinely astonishing to think he is so thick that he believes that lends credibility to what he's saying, ha. He doesn't grasp that it's the sort of "behind the scenes" stuff that he's not supposed to mention as it just reveals the superficial or cosmetic nature of the call. His PR advisors must be tearing their hair out. The guy has the brain of a 12-year-old; clueless, incompetent, tactless and totally lacking in decorum.

I find it hard to believe that a grieving widow would make something like that up. Meanwhile, Trump happens to be a compulsive bull-peddler, so I know whose story I believe.

[BonnieShels]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnvpgoykfku

"one of the great memories of all time."

jesus!

[KrisLetang]

Another left winger goes down as noted scribe Mark Halperin is given the boot by NBC/MSNBC....

[KrisLetang]

Justice Department finally admits IRS targeted conservatives under Obama.(Is he a banana republic dictator?) I honestly do believe he was the most corrupt president in US history. Grant really was a nice man who was betrayed by his friends. The Nixon stuff with Watergate is totally overblown. 2020 is a long time away but Trump is going to coast to reelection.

This VA Governors race is, amazingly, getting tight. Almost impossible to imagine the Dems could lose. Would be an unmitigated disaster if they ever did. Even a close win would be bad in some ways. The party really is being decimated. Yeah, they will flip NJ but big deal.

[mark12345]

Ha, I'm guessing that's rhetorical, but here's the context, just in case: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/us/politics/soldiers-widow-says-trump-struggled-to-remember-sgt-la-david-johnsons-name.html



It's comical that Trump admits in the video above that his advisors put a chart with the soldier's name on it in front of him (Trump) during the call, presumably so that the klutz couldn't forget the name - a pretty straightforward one at that - and yet that is exactly what he did. Unbelievable.

Even if he had gotten the name right, it's an embarrassing admission to say that he had a chart in front of him. Genuinely astonishing to think he is so thick that he believes that lends credibility to what he's saying, ha. He doesn't grasp that it's the sort of "behind the scenes" stuff that he's not supposed to mention as it just reveals the superficial or cosmetic nature of the call. His PR advisors must be tearing their hair out. The guy has the brain of a 12-year-old; clueless, incompetent, tactless and totally lacking in decorum.

I find it hard to believe that a grieving widow would make something like that up. Meanwhile, Trump happens to be a compulsive bull-peddler, so I know whose story I believe.

So you're calling Donald Trump comical and a klutz?
Can you tell me, Danny, how many other American presidents have phoned the families of slain soldiers in recent times?
Answer: Maybe one, if that.
The reason you are hearing about the chart he had in front of him is because he has had to explain himself to the American public.
And why is President Trump explaining himself for something as intimate as a call to a grieving widow?
Eh, good question. Seems sort of strange doesn't it that a president of a country would have to go on TV (or twitter) to explain himself about such a call.
Have you heard Danny, of a president or prime minister of any other country, ever having to do that before (explain himself/herself that it)? Or do you know anyone who has ever heard of it?
I know I've never heard of it in my lifetime.
So in going along with this completely and utterly fabricated story you are asking us to believe that Donald Trump took time out of his day to call a grieving widow, taking the trouble to get her husband's name and background story beforehand, and then, once she gets on the phone, he belittles and berates her (and is rude, according to the claim)? Does the word logic enter your vocabulatory at all Danny?

I keep telling you, you need to take these types of stories with less than a grain of salt, because they are false, and perpetrated by a media which has been lying to the world for a long time now.
Was it you that said the BBC is lying day and night (I'm paraphrasing). Maybe it wasn't you, I can't remember?

I will add this Danny. I was a Republican leaning person in the lead up to last year's US presidential election. Now, however, I wouldn't give the Republicans the time of day.
Why? Because they are imposters - pretending to be the alternatives to the Democrats (who have cheated the American people for decades) - when in fact they have been in bed with them all along.
I have had an epiphany Danny over the last 18 months or so - maybe you can too?

[mark12345]

Justice Department finally admits IRS targeted conservatives under Obama.(Is he a banana republic dictator?) I honestly do believe he was the most corrupt president in US history. Grant really was a nice man who was betrayed by his friends. The Nixon stuff with Watergate is totally overblown. 2020 is a long time away but Trump is going to coast to reelection.

This VA Governors race is, amazingly, getting tight. Almost impossible to imagine the Dems could lose. Would be an unmitigated disaster if they ever did. Even a close win would be bad in some ways. The party really is being decimated. Yeah, they will flip NJ but big deal.

Finally someone who can think clearly on this subject.

[mark12345]

Ha, I'm guessing that's rhetorical, but here's the context, just in case: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/us/politics/soldiers-widow-says-trump-struggled-to-remember-sgt-la-david-johnsons-name.html



It's comical that Trump admits in the video above that his advisors put a chart with the soldier's name on it in front of him (Trump) during the call, presumably so that the klutz couldn't forget the name - a pretty straightforward one at that - and yet that is exactly what he did. Unbelievable.

Even if he had gotten the name right, it's an embarrassing admission to say that he had a chart in front of him. Genuinely astonishing to think he is so thick that he believes that lends credibility to what he's saying, ha. He doesn't grasp that it's the sort of "behind the scenes" stuff that he's not supposed to mention as it just reveals the superficial or cosmetic nature of the call. His PR advisors must be tearing their hair out. The guy has the brain of a 12-year-old; clueless, incompetent, tactless and totally lacking in decorum.

I find it hard to believe that a grieving widow would make something like that up. Meanwhile, Trump happens to be a compulsive bull-peddler, so I know whose story I believe.

And one more thing.
Not only is President Trump the best thing to happen to America in a very long time, there is a new movement starting under Steve Bannon. He has vowed to take on all those Republcan politicans who are trying to undermine him.
They are part of the swamp he keeps referring to. Bannon has vowed to 'primary' each one of those senators, congressmen, and get them voted out in 2018 by people who will uphold Trump's values and put America first.

[Charlie Darwin]

:D!!!

[KrisLetang]

This JFK thing was a big tease. I can't wait until they finally get rid of the redacted stuff so we can find out it was Joe Dimaggio.

Newsweek goes full racist. I'm outraged.
http://www.newsweek.com/why-are-all-conservative-loudmouths-irish-american-691691

[mark12345]

We're going to need to see receipts or else that is unsubstantiated!

Unsubstantiated? You are seriously questioning the figure? It's been out there in political discourse in America for the last two years.

[DannyInvincible]

Unsubstantiated? You are seriously questioning the figure? It's been out there in political discourse in America for the last two years.

Just because it's "out there in political discourse" doesn't make it true. It's a nonsense claim. I posted the following in relation to it up-thread:


As for your claim regarding Obama and Kerry "giving" Iran $125 billion, the reality of course isn't quite as you make out. See:

i) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/17/donald-trump/no-donald-trump-we-are-not-giving-iran-150-billion/
ii) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/16/donald-trump/donald-trump-iran-gets-keep-150-billion-even-if-us/
iii) http://time.com/4441046/400-million-iran-hostage-history/


Trump said under the Iran nuclear deal, "we give them $150 billion, we get nothing."

Trump is referring to the amount of previously frozen Iranian assets [frozen due to sanctions] the deal releases. To be clear, this is money that already belongs to Iran so we’re not "giving" them anything. The $150 billion is a high estimate, and most experts say the real figure is closer to $100 billion, while Iran is probably only able to access a fraction of that.

In exchange for lifting the sanctions, the United States and its allies get to block Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in the near future.


Trump said of Iran that "if the (nuclear) deal gets rejected, they still get" $150 billion.

Experts told us that even if Congress rejected the nuclear deal -- thus maintaining current U.S. sanctions -- other countries could stop enforcing their own sanctions anyway. As a result, Iran would be able to access at least some of its assets that have been frozen under international sanctions. However, experts said it’s highly unlikely that this would amount to $150 billion, the maximum estimate of how much Iran could benefit by the lifting of all international sanctions without regard to Iran’s outstanding financial obligations. Without United States participation, the best estimate we could find was $40 billion.

I'll respond to your other points when I get a chance.

[DannyInvincible]

You ask should Israel be allowed to have WMD's? Absolutely they should. And why should't Iran and Pakistan. As far as I know both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. Iran - no way. Because they sponsor terrorism of all kinds. God knows what they'd do with a nuclear missile.

But Israel sponsor terror groups too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

Essentially, your view appears to be the following: sponsoring terror is to be condemned and punished when Iran is doing it, but it's completely fine and should be rewarded with special entitlements when the US and Israel are doing it. That's just pure hypocrisy. Don't you see the startling contradiction and moral incoherence of your position? What's the principle there exactly?


You will recall the Israeli / Arab war of 2006 (I believe that's the correct year). They were attacked by over 600 rockets fired from Lebanon over the course of a year and never retaliated. Only when one of those rockets landed in a town tid they respond and that's what led to the war. So do you really think those who control Lebanon (in truth most Lebanese people would prefer peace with their neighbor but are manipulated by the very terror groups that Iran sponsors) are seeking peace? Or are they just looking for any excuse to wager war with the Israelis? I think you know the answer. And let's be honest. If the Israelis did not have nuclear weapons they would not exist in the Middle East.

Wasn't it 200 attacks - mostly ineffective and poorly-directed artillery fire, some raids and some via Hezbollah proxies inside Israel - over the course of the previous six years?

Anyway, according to Jonathan Cook (http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/03/13/the-real-goal-of-israel-s-war-on-lebanon), the Winograd Committee leaked a testimony from Israel's prime minister at the time, Ehud Olmert, suggesting that Olmert "had been preparing for such a war at least four months before the official casus belli: the capture by Hezbollah of two Israeli soldiers from a border post on 12 July 2006."

More on that here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/09/syria.israelandthepalestinians

Israel don't really show such "admirable restraint" when they "mow the lawn" in Gaza though, do they? Not that they really demonstrated restraint when they finally did launch their 2006 attacks on Lebanon anyway. Compare the death-tolls of the respective sides involved in the conflict, for example; approximately 1,200 Lebanese were killed compared to 165 Israelis.

[DannyInvincible]

Strange how a guy who thinks so clearly when it comes to football, has such weird notions when it comes to world politics.

Well, I guess politics and football are too very different spheres. There can, of course, be cross-over, but football is a game, the aim of which is to beat your opponent. Politics, on the other hand, is a good deal more serious than football, as it affects every aspect of all people's lives and can often be a matter of life and death. For me, politics is about finding a way to live together with others, preferably in harmony for mutual benefit.

I like this Chomsky quote (http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/34369-why-i-choose-optimism-over-despair-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky) on the matter of the purpose of politics and social policy:


"Since oppression and repression exist, they are reflections of human nature. The same is true of sympathy, solidarity, kindness and concern for others - and for some great figures, like Adam Smith, these were the essential properties of humans. The task for social policy is to design the ways we live and the institutional and cultural structure of our lives so as to favor the benign and to suppress the harsh and destructive aspects of our fundamental nature."
Perhaps you think both football and politics are about beating your opponent? That certainly appears to be how Trump views the world; good guys and bad guys, winning and losing.

Has my political thinking been unclear? If so, where? I've backed up all my "weird notions" with evidence, have I not?


You are questioning the dropping of two (atomic bombs actually, not nuclear) on Japan at the end of World War 2. Really Danny? You are going to question the soldiers who saved your and my parents' lives? Would you be here typing on your keyboard today, if not for the actions of the brave American and British soldiers. That's what I love about us Irish. We are experts on every war we never fought in (save for the brave men from Ireland did join the war effort to fight the Nazis, and God Bless them).

Atomic bombs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon) are nuclear weapons; they source their energy from nuclear fission, which is the splitting of the nucleus of an atom into smaller parts.

The actions of those in power and authority should always be subject to scepticism, critique and challenge in order to keep power in check. Systems of power and control have a burden of proof; they are not self-justifying and their professed righteousness or moral authority is not self-evident. So of course I'll question the psychopathic decision to drop two atomic bombs on civilian populations. I'd question it regardless of who did it and regardless of who was on the receiving end of it. It was a war-crime.

I'm always suspicious when I hear the unquestionable spirit and honour of the humble soldier being invoked – a sentimental red herring, of course - in order to insulate authority and justify the criminal decisions made by those higher up the chain of command. You're erecting a straw man, for I'm criticising the policy-makers who made the decision and gave the orders; those at the top. The soldiers who carried out their military duty don't even have to be brought into the discussion. Sure, they could have expressed or felt moral qualms about their instructions, but they're small fish. If a certain soldier was reluctant to act on his orders, someone else would simply have taken his place and carried it out.

I'm sure the soldiers who took part in the bombing operations sincerely believed in the righteousness of what they were doing - they may even have thought their was some humanitarian merit to it - but the US and British armies are tools that act to protect and enforce the interests of the US and Britain; not Ireland. Let's not kid ourselves.

And, c'mon, the British army has hardly been a friend of Ireland. Don't insult me. I resent being told I owe thanks to the British army, given their track record here in the north of Ireland and the oft-fatal costs their actions have had for my community and, indeed, family. For all you know, I could be here typing in spite of the British army.

What you say is a bit like that other common refrain of brain-dead war-glorifiers: "If it wasn't for the British army in World War II, we'd all be speaking German."

Why do they think we Irish are speaking English?

Anyway, should the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be thankful to the US and British armies? Hardly. Why is their pain, suffering and death erased from your narrative? Just sit back, have a read of what you're writing and try to realise that there is a world of people with feelings, needs, concerns and rights just the same as you beyond your US/UK-centric bubble. You're pretty much lauding the wiping out of two entire Japanese cities. It's positively unhinged.

Perhaps you can have a stab at answering the question below, originally posed by Leo Szilard?:


"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

Out of interest, are there any circumstances under which you believe North Korea would be justified in nuking the US? If so, what are they?


Trump has threatened to wipe N. Korea off the map and rightly so.

I'm not sure how you can condemn, without the slightest hint of irony, Ahmadinejad for allegedly threatening to wipe a country off the map (although that allegation is grounded in a misinterpretation of his words, which were spoken in Farsi) but then praise Trump for threatening to wipe another country off the map.


He's not the one firing the ICBM's is he?

Erm, he is: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/asia/united-states-tests-unarmed-intercontinental-ballistic-missile.html


"The Pentagon conducted a test of an unarmed intercontinental ballistic missile on Wednesday [August the 2nd], with the timing expected to be of note in both North Korea, which recently tested its missile arsenal, and in China, which has been urged by the Trump administration to pressure North Korea on its nuclear program."


If the whole nation of Japan is so scared, does that not tell you something?

I don't doubt the nation of Japan is scared about the situation. That's why the US needs to accept there's a bit of give-and-take here, sit down and talk. Kim is prepared to do so and has been for a number of years.

I do also have to ask, however: how come you're all of a sudden now so concerned about the welfare of the Japanese, yet you were praising the vapourising of two of their cities by the US only five sentences prior? Something tells me your professed or new-found concerns may not be wholly sincere and that you may just be exploiting their fears for the purposes of making an argumentum ad passiones...

Out of interest, what is your suggested solution to the present dilemma? Further threats and heightened military action? What consequences do you foresee arising from that?


And how bad does KJU have it. Up to a few weeks ago he was doing pretty nicely with all the commercial trade from China. He was doing nicely, while his people starve to death if they're not imprisoned.

Of course Kim's standard of living is one of luxury in comparison to the living standards endured by average North Koreans, but that doesn't mean he can't also feel intimidated or threatened by US foreign policy, which is evidently hostile towards him. I'm offering theories as to why he is behaving in the manner he is. There is a context and there are reasons for his conduct.

[Charlie Darwin]

How much is Obama paying you to spout this fake news?

[DannyInvincible]

But perhaps Danny the events of the past two days will help the light bulb to go off for you. The whole Russia collusion thing has proved that Donald Trump has conspired with the Russians to affect the US election last year, hasn't it? Yeah, you should be seeing the real truth now that Hillary's selling of 20 per cent of America's uranium to Russia has been revealed. Hillary sat on a board to approve the deal, a deal which she and her husband got $145 million from. And guess who else was on the board? Rob Rosenstein, the guy who called for the special council to investigate Trump and Bob Muller the chief investigator of that council. Can you say 'conflict of interest'? Mr Muller, who was head of the FBI once, has been labelled as one of the top prosecutors in America. A man with such knowledge of the law and ethics somehow missed the conflict of interest involving himself and his cohorts. When you have those type of people controlling a media who have been trying to take Trump down for 18 months now, you should see that you are being lied to all day long (by the media corporations in America and by extension Britain and Europe). Hopefully, Danny, you will see what is going on in the real world.

Trump won the election, in accordance with the rules of play, and Clinton lost; she and the Democrats need to engage in some serious self-reflection instead of blaming anything and everyone but themselves. Clinton offered more of the same and that didn't resonate. I'd have liked to have seen Sanders up against Trump and feel he would have offered the American people a much more credible alternative to Trump than Clinton, but the DNC scuppered that, presumably as Sanders wasn't business-friendly enough. Shame.

Trump offered "change" and to "make America great again". It was bull****, of course - things will only get worse for ordinary Americans under his administration - but it had greater resonance with the many people feeling alienated, isolated, helpless, hopeless and fearing for their futures (because neoliberalism has eaten away at their social framework and sense of economic security) than Clinton's stagnant and presumptuous spiel.

Of course, all citizens of the globe should fear for our futures with Trump and the Republicans running the show on account of their feelings on climate change, which range from wilful ignorance to total and outright denial. They're one of the most dangerous organisations on the planet right now.

I'm not sure what the "Russian hacking" nonsense has to do with our discussion, but if you want my opinion on it, see here (http://foot.ie/threads/219506-Trump?p=1905103&viewfull=1#post1905103) and here (http://foot.ie/threads/219506-Trump?p=1905104&viewfull=1#post1905104).

It's an embarrassing sideshow when the Democrats should be focusing on challenging and exposing Trump's policies that are actually harming the American people by stealth through the gradual enrichment of and siphoning of wealth towards corporate and private power step-by-step at their expence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRzSAue4sQY). But it's hardly as if the Democrats aren't in the pockets of corporate power either, so I don't hold out much hope for any radical alternative any time soon. You think I don't think Hillary is corrupt and morally bankrupt too?

I try to get my news from non-corporate and independent media wherever possible, but when I do consume such, I'm aware that its neutrality or integrity may be inherently compromised by factors such as ownership, advertising, funding and establishment influence (http://www.openculture.com/2017/03/an-animated-introduction-to-noam-chomskys-manufacturing-consent.html). I'm also more than capable of analysing the media's output critically, but cheers for the heads-up...

[DannyInvincible]

So you're calling Donald Trump comical and a klutz?
Can you tell me, Danny, how many other American presidents have phoned the families of slain soldiers in recent times?
Answer: Maybe one, if that.

Well, I do find his antics, his thin skin, his up-tightness and his blatant emotional insecurity (which he exposes in nearly every utterance) to be comical and I can only judge him by his words and actions, which have “klutz” written all over them. He's a thick buffoon who, fortunately for him, inherited an awful lot of money and then (rather hypocritically) benefited from societal/governmental protection and assistance after he blew it all (https://www.alternet.org/story/156234/exposing_how_donald_trump_really_made_his_fortune% 3A_inheritance_from_dad_and_the_government%27s_pro tection_mostly_did_the_trick).

I thought some sort of acknowledgement to the families of soldiers killed on service would have been fairly standard procedure for a president - as commander-in-chief of the US military - to perform, but perhaps not. I'm not overly bothered either way, to be honest, as it doesn't personally concern me, but if families can be given some sort of comfort and closure by such a gesture, then that's a good thing surely.

Trump clearly didn't provide that for Myeshia Johnson, however. A letter would probably have sufficed and been more sensitive – you're just setting yourself up for trouble with a phone-call, as you've no way out in the likely event of it taking an emotional turn - but that's not really how Trump likes to roll, is it? He's brash, outspoken and impulsive.


The reason you are hearing about the chart he had in front of him is because he has had to explain himself to the American public.

Or maybe it's because he himself feels the need to explain himself because he's so insecure and thin-skinned. He mentioned it; nobody else. He could have just apologised or even let the whole thing go instead of being so defensive, then offensive and digging a hole for himself. Was he under some legal duty to speak about it? No.

The chart claim doesn't lend him any credibility whatsoever. I know he thinks it does, because he's an idiot, but it actually incriminates him further because it exposes just how superficial and impersonal the gesture was that he needed a chart with the soldier's name on it to make sure he wouldn't forget for whom he was purportedly offering "sincere" condolences. He's so thick, he can't even see that he unwittingly revealed this.


And why is President Trump explaining himself for something as intimate as a call to a grieving widow?
Eh, good question. Seems sort of strange doesn't it that a president of a country would have to go on TV (or twitter) to explain himself about such a call.

Who's driving him to do it except his own ego and insecurity? He can't help himself. And it's hugely entertaining.


Have you heard Danny, of a president or prime minister of any other country, ever having to do that before (explain himself/herself that it)? Or do you know anyone who has ever heard of it?
I know I've never heard of it in my lifetime.

National leaders are constantly questioned and placed under scrutiny. Why? Because they're in a pretty important role and often in the public spotlight. Wasn't Clinton impeached after having an affair?

That's not to say corporate media bias doesn't exist – it does and there are ways to at least expose, challenge and fight it - but it's hardly as if Trump believes in media democratisation (never mind truth or fair play). He's a proponent of the corporate model (where corporate profit is prioritised over journalistic integrity) and a keen exponent of the sort of character assassination of which he often falls victim, so I don't have much sympathy when he's subjected to ridicule by it. Consider him hoisted by his own petard perhaps?


So in going along with this completely and utterly fabricated story you are asking us to believe that Donald Trump took time out of his day to call a grieving widow, taking the trouble to get her husband's name and background story beforehand, and then, once she gets on the phone, he belittles and berates her (and is rude, according to the claim)? Does the word logic enter your vocabulatory at all Danny?

I just found his witless admission that he had had a chart in front of him with the name on it a depressingly amusing addition to the already-existing claim by the dead soldier's widow that he'd forgotten the soldier's name, as it just showed up the whole cosmetic nature of the gesture. He put his foot in it and didn't even have the gumption to realise it. I'm not all that interested in the other details, to be honest. If the claim was that he was rude, it's certainly believable, as he lacks any sense of grace altogether. Other than it amounting to another instance of Trump demonstrating himself to be hopelessly unpresidential, it's not a massive deal in the grand scheme of things though; the chart aspect was just something that humoured me.

Why do you ask if I have the word "logic" in my vocabulary? What's that got to do with the above? Do you mean “plausibility”? If so, I think the story is entirely plausible. It's also entirely possible that hostile elements in the media have exaggerated aspects of it. I'm not blind to how the media operates. Why do you say it's fabricated? Are you accusing the grieving widow of lying?


I keep telling you, you need to take these types of stories with less than a grain of salt, because they are false, and perpetrated by a media which has been lying to the world for a long time now.

… Says a Trump sympathiser without a hint of irony.

As I say, I'm well aware as to how the mainstream media operates.


Was it you that said the BBC is lying day and night (I'm paraphrasing). Maybe it wasn't you, I can't remember?

Whilst the BBC do pursue a particular agenda, which, depending on the narrative they wish to push or pursue, sees them frame things in certain ways and devote greater focus or emphasis to certain matters whilst filtering or selectively omitting other information, I don't think I would have quite put it as bluntly or crudely as “the BBC is lying day and night”. They do (or at least purport to) have standards - they tend to avoid explicit falsehood, for example, as that would just undermine all credibility, even amongst more passive or less critical consumers - but they operate the same way any media corporation operates really and their reporting can indeed often mislead their audience. I'm guessing you might be specifically referring to these posts of mine earlier in the thread though where I was critical of the purported impartiality of the BBC when the organisation is clearly anything but neutral in its coverage of UK and global affairs: http://foot.ie/threads/219506-Trump?p=1916167&viewfull=1#post1916167 and http://foot.ie/threads/219506-Trump?p=1916443&viewfull=1#post1916443

If genuinely interested in my views on the BBC, here was some further analysis I did of the corporation's evident Russophobic bias a while back: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/the-bbcs-russophobic-bias/

Out of interest, what do you think of Chomsky's critique of the mainstream media?:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M

I think it's something you might be interested in if you could see beyond the ideological contrast from your own and get round to acknowledging his obvious wisdom instead of dismissing him as someone who has "a very rose coloured glasses view of the world". I'm not sure whether or not you'd have come across it before but here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE)'s something more detailed - Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' documentary - if further academic media analysis genuinely interests you.


I will add this Danny. I was a Republican leaning person in the lead up to last year's US presidential election. Now, however, I wouldn't give the Republicans the time of day.
Why? Because they are imposters - pretending to be the alternatives to the Democrats (who have cheated the American people for decades) - when in fact they have been in bed with them all along.
I have had an epiphany Danny over the last 18 months or so - maybe you can too?

I agree that, fundamentally, there isn't a huge degree of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Both are to the right of centre with the Democrats being slightly less worse. Nevertheless, I can't really envisage myself taking a heavy lurch to the right any time soon, unless I have a lobotomy or something...

Anyway, who are you leaning towards now?

[mark12345]

We're going to need to see receipts or else that is unsubstantiated!


Well, I guess politics and football are too very different spheres. There can, of course, be cross-over, but football is a game, the aim of which is to beat your opponent. Politics, on the other hand, is a good deal more serious than football, as it affects every aspect of all people's lives and can often be a matter of life and death. For me, politics is about finding a way to live together with others, preferably in harmony for mutual benefit.

I like this Chomsky quote (http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/34369-why-i-choose-optimism-over-despair-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky) on the matter of the purpose of politics and social policy:


"Since oppression and repression exist, they are reflections of human nature. The same is true of sympathy, solidarity, kindness and concern for others - and for some great figures, like Adam Smith, these were the essential properties of humans. The task for social policy is to design the ways we live and the institutional and cultural structure of our lives so as to favor the benign and to suppress the harsh and destructive aspects of our fundamental nature."
Perhaps you think both football and politics are about beating your opponent? That certainly appears to be how Trump views the world; good guys and bad guys, winning and losing.

Has my political thinking been unclear? If so, where? I've backed up all my "weird notions" with evidence, have I not?



Atomic bombs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon) are nuclear weapons; they source their energy from nuclear fission, which is the splitting of the nucleus of an atom into smaller parts.

The actions of those in power and authority should always be subject to scepticism, critique and challenge in order to keep power in check. Systems of power and control have a burden of proof; they are not self-justifying and their professed righteousness or moral authority is not self-evident. So of course I'll question the psychopathic decision to drop two atomic bombs on civilian populations. I'd question it regardless of who did it and regardless of who was on the receiving end of it. It was a war-crime.

I'm always suspicious when I hear the unquestionable spirit and honour of the humble soldier being invoked – a sentimental red herring, of course - in order to insulate authority and justify the criminal decisions made by those higher up the chain of command. You're erecting a straw man, for I'm criticising the policy-makers who made the decision and gave the orders; those at the top. The soldiers who carried out their military duty don't even have to be brought into the discussion. Sure, they could have expressed or felt moral qualms about their instructions, but they're small fish. If a certain soldier was reluctant to act on his orders, someone else would simply have taken his place and carried it out.

I'm sure the soldiers who took part in the bombing operations sincerely believed in the righteousness of what they were doing - they may even have thought their was some humanitarian merit to it - but the US and British armies are tools that act to protect and enforce the interests of the US and Britain; not Ireland. Let's not kid ourselves.

And, c'mon, the British army has hardly been a friend of Ireland. Don't insult me. I resent being told I owe thanks to the British army, given their track record here in the north of Ireland and the oft-fatal costs their actions have had for my community and, indeed, family. For all you know, I could be here typing in spite of the British army.

What you say is a bit like that other common refrain of brain-dead war-glorifiers: "If it wasn't for the British army in World War II, we'd all be speaking German."

Why do they think we Irish are speaking English?

Anyway, should the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be thankful to the US and British armies? Hardly. Why is their pain, suffering and death erased from your narrative? Just sit back, have a read of what you're writing and try to realise that there is a world of people with feelings, needs, concerns and rights just the same as you beyond your US/UK-centric bubble. You're pretty much lauding the wiping out of two entire Japanese cities. It's positively unhinged.

Perhaps you can have a stab at answering the question below, originally posed by Leo Szilard?:


"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

Out of interest, are there any circumstances under which you believe North Korea would be justified in nuking the US? If so, what are they?



I'm not sure how you can condemn, without the slightest hint of irony, Ahmadinejad for allegedly threatening to wipe a country off the map (although that allegation is grounded in a misinterpretation of his words, which were spoken in Farsi) but then praise Trump for threatening to wipe another country off the map.



Erm, he is: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/asia/united-states-tests-unarmed-intercontinental-ballistic-missile.html


"The Pentagon conducted a test of an unarmed intercontinental ballistic missile on Wednesday [August the 2nd], with the timing expected to be of note in both North Korea, which recently tested its missile arsenal, and in China, which has been urged by the Trump administration to pressure North Korea on its nuclear program."



I don't doubt the nation of Japan is scared about the situation. That's why the US needs to accept there's a bit of give-and-take here, sit down and talk. Kim is prepared to do so and has been for a number of years.

I do also have to ask, however: how come you're all of a sudden now so concerned about the welfare of the Japanese, yet you were praising the vapourising of two of their cities by the US only five sentences prior? Something tells me your professed or new-found concerns may not be wholly sincere and that you may just be exploiting their fears for the purposes of making an argumentum ad passiones...

Out of interest, what is your suggested solution to the present dilemma? Further threats and heightened military action? What consequences do you foresee arising from that?



Of course Kim's standard of living is one of luxury in comparison to the living standards endured by average North Koreans, but that doesn't mean he can't also feel intimidated or threatened by US foreign policy, which is evidently hostile towards him. I'm offering theories as to why he is behaving in the manner he is. There is a context and there are reasons for his conduct.

You write so much it's almost impossible to respond to your every point. As far as the US firing missiles, that is true. But they came in response to N. Korea's initial firing of missiles, four or five times. Is that not acceptable in your book? You also mention 200 poorly directed missiles/artillery fire being fired at Israel. My number is close to 600 but who's counting? And your marks out of ten to the Israeli's for exercising restraint during that period? How long would the Irish people put up with that while saying and doing nothing in response? We certainly hold the Israeli's to a much different standard, don't we. My initial question was 'who in the Israel / Palestinian conflict is looking to keep the peace and who isn't?' You know the answer as well as I do.

[mark12345]

You are still harping on about Trump's response to the soldiers window. I asked if you ever heard of, or knew anyone who ever heard of a president or prime minister having to explain themselves about a call made in these type of circumstances? It is telling that you were unwilling or unable to answer that question.
You wrote an awful lot but did not mention Congresswoman Fredrica Wilson? You are aware that she is front and center of this whole story, or maybe your not? Wilson listened in on the widows private call with the president. Who does that sort of thing? And then, shock of all shocs, Wilson goes running to CNN etc to say how awful the president was in his phone call. Wilson has been bashing Trump for a long time before this phone call. I told you it was fabricated, didn't I. But why listen to me? Or why believe one of the other widows who has said that Trump was nothing short of gracious and very supportive when he called her.
You are quite intelligent Danny judging by your writing. I feel that in time you will realize that Donald Trump is not the bad person the media make him out to b

[mark12345]

Rather than continually defending Donald Trump to you Danny, I will list his good points on a day when I have been informed that many kids schools across the US have cancelled Halloween. That's right, they now call it Orange and Black Spirit day, to go with the cancellation of Christmas, Easter and Columbus Day.

In that regard Trump has said we will be saying 'Merry Christmas' again this year. So he is upholding the traditional values of America, this being just one of them.

He also is well on his way to instituting a new tax code which will put an average of$4000 in the pockets of every American family.
Unemployment is at its lowest point since 1973.
Illegal immigration has been reduced by 80 per cent.
He has appointed a conservative Supreme Court judge.
He has arrested the free flow of would be terrorists into the US with the Travel Ban

He has decimated the notorious MS13 gang, saving many lives and he's waged war on criminal illegals (ie drug runners, rapists, murderers).
But best of all he has exposed the rotten to the core ruling class (both Republican and Democrats) in Washington who have been deceiving the American public for years

[Eminence Grise]

Unemployment is at its lowest point since 1973.
Illegal immigration has been reduced by 80 per cent....
He has arrested the free flow of would be terrorists into the US with the Travel Ban

Yeah!!! The nerve of those guys heading to the States and taking good ol' US jobs.

OK, now I'm off to roofie myself so I can forget the amount of rubbish I've read over the last few pages of this thread.

[DannyInvincible]

As far as the US firing missiles, that is true.

Yes, so why did you originally try to claim otherwise?


But they came in response to N. Korea's initial firing of missiles, four or five times.

And why did North Korea test its ICBM arsenal?


Is that not acceptable in your book?

I'm saying it's counter-productive (if the genuine aim is peace). Where does it get anyone? I'm also saying it's hypocritical to apply one set of principles – a generous set - to one's own conduct whilst applying another set – more restrictive – to the conduct of others.


You also mention 200 poorly directed missiles/artillery fire being fired at Israel. My number is close to 600 but who's counting? And your marks out of ten to the Israeli's for exercising restraint during that period? How long would the Irish people put up with that while saying and doing nothing in response? We certainly hold the Israeli's to a much different standard, don't we. My initial question was 'who in the Israel / Palestinian conflict is looking to keep the peace and who isn't?' You know the answer as well as I do.

The attacks were coming from Hezbollah; not the state of Lebanon. I suspect that complicated matters a bit. You can't just launch a war upon another sovereign state because of the actions of certain agents within it.

Israel evidently don't prioritise peace. They want peace on their own terms; they prioritise their own interests. And they certainly don't seek justice. If Israel prioritised peace – a just peace - they could start with ending the settlements project and their occupation of Palestine, both of which are illegal and in contravention of multiple UN resolutions. Why are Israel engaged in an illegal settlement programme to consolidate an illegal occupation if they genuinely seek peace?

These sorts of graphs tell their own story:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Israel-Palestine_conflict_deaths_per_month.png/1280px-Israel-Palestine_conflict_deaths_per_month.png

Israel is the belligerent party in the ascendancy here. They control this conflict and its narrative, if even the word “conflict” is appropriate to describe such a one-sided situation. The word “conflict” misleadingly suggests a level of political and military parity between the two sides.

[DannyInvincible]

You are still harping on about Trump's response to the soldiers window. I asked if you ever heard of, or knew anyone who ever heard of a president or prime minister having to explain themselves about a call made in these type of circumstances? It is telling that you were unwilling or unable to answer that question.

If I'm "harping on" about it, it's because you've been discussing it with me.

And I had thought you were asking in a general sense if I'd ever heard of a leader having to explain themselves to the media or public in such a fashion about something (generally) they had done, as you had phrased the question ambiguously. This is how you phrased it: "Have you heard Danny, of a president or prime minister of any other country, ever having to do that before (explain himself/herself that it [sic])?" That's why I gave the answer I did and mentioned the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Anyway, now that I know what you actually meant, no, I've never heard of a president having to explain themselves about a condolence call made in the sort of circumstances in question. It is a rather specific set of circumstances, mind. And that's not necessarily to say it has never happened either. Let's also not forget that Trump was not compelled to explain himself by anyone other than himself and his own bruised, fragile ego.

Besides, so what if a president has never explained himself or been asked to explain himself like this before? What's your point? Elements of the media are hostile towards Trump and might give him a hard time or might devote greater attention to his flaws than to the flaws of others with whom they may share a greater degree of political sympathy? I'm aware. Boohoo... As I said above, it's hardly as if Trump believes in integrity, truth or fair play, so his complaints over perceived victimisation ring very hollow.

It's also amusing to see a Trump sympathiser play the victim card, given the propensity for his supporters to throw around insults like "snowflake". Compare how Jeremy Corbyn - the choice of "snowflakes", supposedly - deals with media bias and hostility against him in the UK compared to how Trump deals with it in the US; Corbyn gets on with it whilst Trump moans and whines about it ceaselessly in true "loser" style. It's comical.

At the end of the day, Trump still made a hames of the condolence call and of matters since, regardless of what the media wish to say. Perhaps no other president has ever made such a mess of a situation like that, meaning there would have been nothing for the media to uncover then, or perhaps other presidents wrote letters of condolence in such circumstances (for obvious reasons that seemed to escape Trump's cerebral matter) rather than made phone-calls, so there would have been no reason to scrutinise other presidents' personal manner in times past.

Plenty of the criticism Trump gets is completely valid. It can't be all down to media bias, or is that actually what you believe? I'd be happier if the media went to town on him (and the likes of extremist Paul Ryan operating quietly in the background) on his/their more serious or dangerous defects and policies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT4MO9uQxgc) - those which threaten livelihoods and endanger the lives of people across the globe - as well as the stuff like this condolence call, which is fairly minor in the grand scheme of things. (That's not to negate the widow's undoubted heavy personal grief.) Do you feel Trump should be exempt from criticism? Does he have any negative points, in your opinion?


You wrote an awful lot but did not mention Congresswoman Fredrica Wilson? You are aware that she is front and center of this whole story, or maybe your not? Wilson listened in on the widows private call with the president. Who does that sort of thing? And then, shock of all shocs, Wilson goes running to CNN etc to say how awful the president was in his phone call. Wilson has been bashing Trump for a long time before this phone call. I told you it was fabricated, didn't I. But why listen to me? Or why believe one of the other widows who has said that Trump was nothing short of gracious and very supportive when he called her.
You are quite intelligent Danny judging by your writing. I feel that in time you will realize that Donald Trump is not the bad person the media make him out to b

Heh, who's harping on about it now? Why did Wilson need to be mentioned? Wilson was in the car with Myeisha Johnson when Trump called as Wilson was accompanying Johnson to Miami airport to receive the body of her late husband (https://globalnews.ca/news/3829129/frederica-wilson-death-threats-trump-phone-call/). Johnson had the call on loudspeaker, so it wasn't as if Wilson was "secretly listening in". There were others in Johnson's presence too as she took the call; all those present in the car were able to hear the call, in accordance with Johnson's wishes. Johnson also said Wilson was practically part of her family and stated that the congresswoman’s recollection of the call was "100 per cent correct".

Whatever other widows might have had to say with regard to their interactions with Trump has no necessary bearing upon the experience of Myeisha Johnson. I'll ask you again; are you accusing Johnson of lying? As you might say yourself, it is telling that you are unwilling or unable to answer that question (never mind all the other questions I've put your way).

I can judge Trump by his own words, tweets, actions and/or policies whilst being simultaneously aware of how the media works. He's the sort of person who'll hang himself if you give him enough rope. It's a bit patronising to suggest that my opinion of him is a result of mainstream media brainwashing.


Rather than continually defending Donald Trump to you Danny, I will list his good points...

I'm guessing that's your way of trying to get round answering the numerous points and questions I've put to you?


...on a day when I have been informed that many kids schools across the US have cancelled Halloween. That's right, they now call it Orange and Black Spirit day, to go with the cancellation of Christmas, Easter and Columbus Day.

C'mon, I'm trying to pay you the respect of taking you seriously here, but you're making it difficult for me with this sort of rubbish.

Who informed you that Hallowe'en - originally a pagan festival, of course - has been cancelled in schools across the US? Do you just believe anything you hear when it conforms to your prejudices? You've been continually telling me, without a hint of irony, to cast a critical eye over what I hear in the media in respect of Donald Trump, but maybe it's you who needs to question his sources, for what you've been informed of appears to be an embellished version of the following story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4993268/School-cancels-Halloween-black-orange-day.html

As you can read there in the link, two elementary schools are reported to have re-arranged or cancelled some Hallowe'en-related events, in order to ensure inclusivity for all their pupils, with one having moved a party they entitled the "Monster Mash Halloween Party" to after-hours on the 20th of October. Costumes were allowed at this event and attendance was not compulsory, so those who wished to participate were free to do so and those who didn't wish to participate didn't have to. On the 31st of October itself, the school is to host what they're calling a "black and orange spirit day" for all, in which the pupils can wear black and orange if they wish. Is this honestly that big a deal? Obviously, Hallowe'en hasn't actually been cancelled.

I know your exaggerated re-telling of this completely irrelevant story was a coded attack on Muslims and all – it's the sort of non-story that the Islamophobic/racist "It's PC gone mad!" brigade love to get into a tizzy about - but would it change your opinion of the situation if you learned that plenty of white Americans - Jehovah's Witnesses and devout Christians (http://www.derryjournal.com/news/derry-s-hallowe-en-celebrations-highly-dangerous-say-clergymen-1-8217744), for example - reject the celebration of Hallowe'en and that the schools' decisions may have been taken in light of such sensitivities?

And when and where have Christmas and Easter been cancelled? What on earth are you talking about? :confused:

As for the distasteful Columbus Day, it's essentially an unashamed celebration of genocide and white arrogance. Popular opposition to it in one form or another has existed since the 19th century. Plenty of US states have never observed it.


But best of all he has exposed the rotten to the core ruling class (both Republican and Democrats) in Washington who have been deceiving the American public for years

And he has replaced them with other corporate-friendly elites who will continue deceiving, impoverishing and endangering the American public for years into the future. Great stuff... :rolleyes:

[Charlie Darwin]

Danny, you still haven't declared how much of the $152 billion North Korea money Obama paid you to spread this propaganda. As such, I will have to declare you an enemy combatant until proven otherwise.

[Eminence Grise]

There is no Danny. Fools. Can't you see no one man could type so much on so many things??? That's where the $152bn went - creating a team of Dannies. He's you, maybe. Maybe he's me. Maybe they've gotten to me. The EveryDan. Mark12345 is so far gone he can't count to 6. They're all invincible. I tells ya. It's all true. Tinhat tinhat tinhat...

Every other rational explanation is just so... prosaic.;)

[DannyInvincible]

Danny, you still haven't declared how much of the $152 billion North Korea money Obama paid you to spread this propaganda. As such, I will have to declare you an enemy combatant until proven otherwise.

I swear I didn't get any of the $152 billion North Korea money, because there was no $152 billion North Korea money. (Please just don't ask about the $152 billion Iran money!)


There is no Danny. Fools. Can't you see no one man could type so much on so many things??? That's where the $152bn went - creating a team of Dannies. He's you, maybe. Maybe he's me. Maybe they've gotten to me. The EveryDan. Mark12345 is so far gone he can't count to 6. They're all invincible. I tells ya. It's all true. Tinhat tinhat tinhat...

Every other rational explanation is just so... prosaic.;)

Are you saying that I'm a conspiracy theorist, or are you saying that I'm a full-blown conspiracy? :sweat:

[Real ale Madrid]

Starting to think Mark12345 is a SkStu parody account.

[dahamsta]

Sorry, but they're all Russians, conned into thinking that Foot.ie is an important outlying bastion of left-wing support by their mates at the watercooler in 55 Savushkina Street (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house). The propaganda equivalent of sending them to stores for a Long Stand.

[mark12345]

Yeah!!! The nerve of those guys heading to the States and taking good ol' US jobs.

OK, now I'm off to roofie myself so I can forget the amount of rubbish I've read over the last few pages of this thread.

Off you go. And do bring some logic back with you, will you?

[mark12345]

The attacks were coming from Hezbollah; not the state of Lebanon. I suspect that complicated matters a bit. You can't just launch a war upon another sovereign state because of the actions of certain agents within it.

Danny, does it seem logical to you that Israel, a country the size of your fingernail on the map of North Africa, would want to start a war with an Arab nation, with all those Arab countries around them?. If it was you or me living in a neighborhood of people who hated us, we would want to go about our business every day and steer clear of trouble, wouldn't we? The settlements were the place where several attacks were launched on Israel in the recent past. Yes they were part of an agreement which gave them to the Palestinians, but once the attacks started, all bets were off as far as the Israelis wer e concerned. And who can blame them? The fact that Hezbollah are launching the attacks means nothing. They are launching them from Lebanon - it doesn't matter if martians are launching the attacks, Israel has to defend itself. You would agree with that, wouldn't you?

[BonnieShels]

There's defending yourself and there is what Israel has been doing to systematically degrade the lives of Palestinians since 1948.

We all know what happens when you back a dog into a corner.

Israel backed the dog into a corner (with the acquiescence of the US, UK, Germany [EU]) and have been living with the results since. The subsequent antagonisation since 2008 has been equally maddening.

The intractability of the Israeli position on EVERYTHING makes it unlikely that things will simmer down.

[Eminence Grise]

Off you go. And do bring some logic back with you, will you?

Ooooh, one finger points forward and three point back.

[mark12345]

There's defending yourself and there is what Israel has been doing to systematically degrade the lives of Palestinians since 1948.

We all know what happens when you back a dog into a corner.

Israel backed the dog into a corner (with the acquiescence of the US, UK, Germany [EU]) and have been living with the results since. The subsequent antagonisation since 2008 has been equally maddening.

The intractability of the Israeli position on EVERYTHING makes it unlikely that things will simmer down.

Decent points you make. However what has happened to Israel when they have been 'tractable' to the Palestinians? Like with the settlements? It ended up in rockets being fired into Israel and attacks from that location on Israelis. In addition, what about the Arabs who live in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. They are allowed to go unmolested in Israeli sociey, that is until they plant a bomb on a bus or in a restaurant to kill as many Jews as they can. So if the Israelis are intractable you can obviously see why.
And as far as backing a dog into a corner, there is plenty of money available to many of the Arab courntries in North Africa. They could help the Palestinians build a thriving economy, which might allow them to trade with neighboring countries, perhaps even Israel. But unfortunately the same people who bankroll the likes of Hezbollah, don't appear to have the welfare of the Palestinians in mind.

[KrisLetang]

Why does it have to be a two state solution? Why can't the Palestinians be married into a real economy? In a 3 state solution for example.

[mark12345]

You don't live in America Danny, do you?
Just wondering?
What American media are you familiar with? Is it CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC? Or do you watch Fox News Channel?
Do you listen to any of the leading Talk Radio shows in America?
I listen to them all because I live here. And the only TV channel who will give you reputable news (they criticize the country's politicians equally) is Fox News. All of the Talk Radio shows are usually on the money when it comes to the corruption in Washington and on how we are being fooled and deceived by the mainstream media when it comes to Donald Trump.

I have seen the American mainstream media lie through their teeth, often through decption, for years now. I never thought one way or the other about the stories on the six o'clock news, but when you finally see what they are saying and how they are
presenting it to you, it is disgusting beyond belief. However, not everyone in America is a news / policical junkie like me and the end result of that is that a good 40 per cent of this country is completely clueless as to what is going on in government in Washington. They get their news from comedians and blogs and Facebook, but I'm sure that is the same in Ireland.

Here are some examples, if you care to read them, of the bias against Donald Trump in the MSM.
On November 8 last year, the day Trump got elected, a man in Chicago was driving away from the poll booth when he was run off the road and pulled out of his car by four youths (three male, one female). His crime - he had a Trump sticker on his car. They beat him senseless and he is lucky to have gotten away with his life. They also robbed him. Now, had the shoe been on the other foot (ie Trump supporters doing that to Hillary supporter) CNN would have broken away from all election coverage and devoted all their time to this incident. What did they do? They tried to bury the story and hope it would go away. It was only two days later that they showed it to the public, and only then because it was all over YouTube.

And what did CNN tell us about the DNC server hacking? They tried to bury that one also. The server was hacked, we were told. And when the FBI came to Philadelphia to investigate the crime (remember it was a crime commited on American soil, which is under the jurisdiction of the FBI, they were told that their services weren't needed). The FBI were told that the DNC had contracted the investigation out to a private firm called Crowdstrike. It is reported that the DNC did not want the FBI looking at the server as it had evidence of the way they had railroaded Bernie Sanders in order to get Hillary elected. CNN, and the other main media outlets kept this under wraps and are still doing it to this day. At the same time they are pushing a narrative that Trump was colluding with the Russians. Now it's ok to say that if there is evidence of that. But there is none, over a year after the story began.

And how can you take CNN et al seriously when their anchors were openly crying the night Donal Trump got elected.

Just the other night, when news came through that unemployement figures were at their lowest since 1973 and the Dow Jones at its highest mark ever, what the ABC and NBC do? They decided not to run their financial segment, which would have showed Trump in a favorable light. And then there was the decision not to investigate Hervey Weinstein, he of Hollywood fame who has now several charges of sexual misconduct and rape against him. Harvey was a big Democrat donor. He contributed to Hillary and others and ABC decided twice not to run a story about him which showed his transgressions.

All day long the mainstream media are criticising Trump. You just cannot take them seriously, because they are trying to deceive you into thinking the way they want you think. Propoganda in other words. Unfortunately too many Americans believe them, and I know from talking to people in Ireland and England that the news is similarly slanted there.

Look, Donald Trump is a brash New Yorker. He has his mannerisms which some people may not like. I'll give you that. But those things are objective. His substance is without question however. He is the best thing to come along in American politics (because he is not a politician) in decades. He is nothing if not a realist - look at his comments on the New York terrorist attack this past Tuesday - while others around him are telling us that day is night, and night is day, and questioning our intelligence when we don't believe them.

I have gone on far too long Danny. But I must say this before leaving. You said the following:

"At the end of the day, Trump still made a hames of the condolence call and of matters since, regardless of what the media wish to say. Perhaps no other president has ever made such a mess of a situation like that, meaning there would have been nothing for the media to uncover then?"

You are as wrong about this as was the man who said the Titanic was unsinkable.

[KrisLetang]

Mark go on MSNBC.Com right now, they don't have ANYTHING about Donna Brazile saying the Clinton's rigged the Democratic primary! Donna Brazile, the head of the DNC at election time!!!!!!!!

[mark12345]

Why does it have to be a two state solution? Why can't the Palestinians be married into a real economy? In a 3 state solution for example.

Sounds good to me. I have often said that the Israelis and Palestinians are well able to sort out their own problems and work together to that end. It is the war mongers / terrorist groups who are using Lebannon as a stick to beat Israel with, who are the problem.

[mark12345]

Danny, how would you feel if someone called you a racist?
Or a bigot?
Not nice for someone to do that, wouldn't you say, particularly if they never met you.
Yet that is the fate which has befallen one General John Kelly, Donald Trump's Chief of Staff, all because of that 'condolence phone call."

He said Congresswoman, Frederica Wilson, was an empty barrell after she smeared Trump. Then she labels him a racist.
People in America were shocked but that's what Trump has to deal with all day long every day. You don't like the President's policies - why not go ahead and label him a racist.
Did he do anything that could be called racist? No, who cares. Just label him a raist anyway (remember Trump employed thousands of blacks and minorities during his time as a real estate tycoon and only became 'a racist' since he opposed the Democrats)
Don't like his Chief of Staff. Call him a racist too.

That sort of behavior has been going on in America for quite a long time - decent people got sick of it a long time ago.

[KrisLetang]

Brazile writes she was haunted by the murder of DNC Seth Rich, shutting the blinds in her house so snipers could not see her. :shock:

[mark12345]

Brazile writes she was haunted by the murder of DNC Seth Rich, shutting the blinds in her house so snipers could not see her. :shock:

Pretty scary stuff to be in a position like that. I guess that's why she came out against Clinton

[KrisLetang]

Can you imagine if Reince Priebus hinted that the Bush family was having him whacked!!!??? Rachel Maddow would have a cow. WOW.

[KrisLetang]

BTW the investigation into Seth Rich's murder is murky as hell.

[tetsujin1979]

it really isn't, he was the unfortunate victim of a random assault.

[DannyInvincible]

A good breakdown of Donna Brazile's revelations in respect of how the DNC rigged the Democratic primary:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3W2GIZ8rN0

Brazile was the interim chairperson of the DNC from July of 2016 to February of 2017.


No election has ever been so rigged in US history. Everything that was done at the DNC was done at the orders of one of the candidates, to the discrimination and bias against all of the other candidates, including Bernie Sanders. They have destroyed the Democratic party.

It's more than a bit hypocritical of Hillary Clinton to purportedly champion "democracy" and complain about alleged Russian interference and collusion with Trump to help swing the US presidential election whilst she benefited from the DNC rigging the Democratic primary in her favour. She's been going on for the past year as if she's been cheated - as if someone stole the presidency from her - when she stole the Democratic nomination from Sanders.

If the DNC hadn't undermined Sanders, it's entirely possible that he'd now be president instead of Trump, but the Democrats can't bear to admit that. They have only themselves to blame and must bear a significant degree of responsibility for Trump becoming president of the US.

[KrisLetang]

it really isn't, he was the unfortunate victim of a random assault.

Well first it was a robbery. But then the story hastily got switched BC they didn't take anything. Also there are serious questions about the investigation. I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn BTW.

[KrisLetang]

If the DNC hadn't undermined Sanders, it's entirely possible that he'd now be president instead of Trump, but the Democrats can't bear to admit that. They have only themselves to blame and must bear a significant degree of responsibility for Trump becoming president of the US.

There is no way Bernie would have won the election.

[DannyInvincible]

There is no way Bernie would have won the election.

There's a good case made for Sanders here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/10/hillary-clinton-lost-bernie-sanders-could-have-won/


That Clinton has unusually high unfavorables has been true for decades. Indeed, it has been a steady fact of her political life. She has annually ranked among the least-liked politicians on the national stage since she was the first lady. In recent years, her low favorability rating was matched only by that of her opponent, animated hate Muppet Donald Trump. In contrast, Sanders enjoys very high popularity, ranking as the most popular senator for two years in a row. Nationally, his favorability rating is more than 10 points higher than Clinton’s, and his unfavorability rating is more than 15 points lower. This popularity would have been a real asset on the campaign trail.

...

If Clinton’s campaign seemed bizarrely pitched toward the interests of those who were always going to vote for her anyway, Sanders was uniquely positioned to reach voters with a different sensibility. In contrast to the millionaire polish of the Clinton camp, Sanders has a somewhat shambolic, grandfatherly presence that conveys an unpretentious and approachable character. Clinton struggled to use Trump’s wealth against him, in large measure because she herself is an immensely wealthy woman. (In fact, she frequently suggested that Trump wasn’t really all that rich, a ludicrous line of attack from a primary in which Sanders’s play for Nordic-style egalitarian policies won him favor in battleground states such as Pennsylvania.) Sanders would have been able to contrast Trump’s ostentatious wealth with his own shabby aesthetic. The message writes itself: Trump talks a good game about economic anxiety, but why would you trust this New York billionaire to put your interests first?

Even Trump's personal pollster, Tony Fabrizio, thinks Sanders would have beaten Trump: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bernie-sanders-us-presidential-election-win-donald-trump-won-democratic-nomination-hillary-clinton-a8029926.html


When asked what the result would have been if Mr Sanders had run against Mr Trump, [Fabrizio] said: "I think Sanders beats Trump."

He added: "I think Sanders would have had the ability to reach a lot of the less than college-educated, low-income white voters." When asked what the result would have been if Mr Sanders had run against Mr Trump, he said: "I think Sanders beats Trump."

He added: "I think Sanders would have had the ability to reach a lot of the less than college-educated, low-income white voters."

[mark12345]

it really isn't, he was the unfortunate victim of a random assault.

What is the count now 'unfortunate victims of random assaults' related to the Clintons? I believe Seth Rich makes it 46.
Do I believe the Clinton's are in the Mafia business of taking people out? No. But as suggested above, there is a lot of murkiness surrounding some of the vicitms.
And the countless lies the Clintons have told over the years just add to the suspicion.

[Charlie Darwin]

So you don't believe the Clintons are in the mafia business of taking people out, they just have the occasional wiseguy whacked?

[mark12345]

There's a good case made for Sanders here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/10/hillary-clinton-lost-bernie-sanders-could-have-won/



Even Trump's personal pollster, Tony Fabrizio, thinks Sanders would have beaten Trump: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bernie-sanders-us-presidential-election-win-donald-trump-won-democratic-nomination-hillary-clinton-a8029926.html

It would have been a much closer battle between Sanders and Trump, but God help America if Bernie every won. Free this, free that, free education for everyone! He tried it in his own state and they almost ran him out of town as it resulted in massive tax hikes for Vermonters. The real people who got screwed in the last election were the Bernie voters. There were 15 milion of them at one stage, it was reported. And then, after the election was stolen from him, the supporters were left high and dry. And to add insult to injury Bernie takes a 1.5 million dollar house in the Hamptons in exchange for supporting Hillary for the balance of the campaign. With Bernie being the consumate anti-Hillary, his u turn must have left his supporters seething. And it also begs the question, how anyone could ever take a man like him seriously again.

[mark12345]

So you don't believe the Clintons are in the mafia business of taking people out, they just have the occasional wiseguy whacked?

I don't know that they have had anyone whacked. But there are an awful lot of rumours about such goings on involving them. And, as I say, their years of lying just adds to the suspicion (read about Bill's attack on Juanita Broaddrick "Bill Clinton raped me and Hillary Clinton threatened me," plus the stories of Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones). There are reportedly 24 women who have made allegations against Bill Clinton including one in England. Now do you know any guy, Danny, who could come home to his wife and tell her that he was under investigation for sexual misconduct at work and expect to get a "Don't worry about it honey, everything will be ok," answer? No, neither do I. He might get away with it once, but can you imagine any man coming home to his wife and telling her, 24 times, that he was under investigation for sexual misconduct? Would the wife still be around to listen to him? Not only was Bill Clinton's wife still around to endure a marriage which was nothing but a facade, she reportedly threatened many of these women who accused her husband. How preposterous is that? And to see the pair of them cozy up to one another two or three times on the campaign last year, when it looked for all the world that Hillary would be the next president. Well......need I say more.