USA Presidential Election 2016

1161719212227

Comments

  • I will start a new thread on 20-Jan-17.  title tbd
    Traviskingbee67
  • Would video of Trump and prostitutes be enough to blackmail him? Apparently everyone agrees he doesn't have business ties to Russia, so bribery seems unlikely.
  • aberry89aberry89 California
    edited January 2017

    Dude was a millionaire in the 80's. The shit you could get up to back then as man, who is white, rich and powerful is endless. You can read the biographies of now-worse-for-wear ex-millionaires. It would be naive to think our future president hasn't done some dark, very illage shit in his day. People that work for Trump say loyalty to him is what he regards highest. The people that probably know the bad shit are the closest to him, he puts them in power - and you dont bite the hand that feeds. 
  • I doubt the Russians have anything about the 1980s they could blackmail him with.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Would video of Trump and prostitutes be enough to blackmail him? Apparently everyone agrees he doesn't have business ties to Russia, so bribery seems unlikely.

    I seem to remember speculation that the business ties were related to loans from Russian sources??  Tax records might help.
  • I think people know Trump and his organization are very indebted to Deutsche Bank, which is under investigation for Russia related money laundering, so there's that.  
    Vasilnate1TaraC73
  • TravisTravis CA
    edited January 2017
    I am so happy to see CNN avenged. That was some bullshit. Did anyone watch that ridiculous interview/argument between Anderson Cooper and Kellyanne Conway the other night? I'm so glad that for whatever reason Biden, Comey, and Clapper confirmed that they were full of shit (though I'm certain there will never be a retraction or apology from the Trump camp). It's not at all a new fear or idea, but keeping a close eye on their relationship with the media is going to be really important.
    Vasilnate1tom_g
  • kingbee67kingbee67 Los Angeles Ca.
    Fuck CNN! They are the worst! They let the Trump spin doctors pile up the bullshit. They had these brain dead assholes come on and run the bullshit while the played nice and argued limply. Never did they just say "liar". I think they love it that they have Trump as President. They will have some lame ass story to drone on about all day long. Clinton would probably killed the network with boredom. When the lines to the gas chambers get set up. I hope I get to see the CNN guys go in before they shove me in.
    Also fuck Morning Joe and his uptight co host!
    At least with Fox we know what we are getting.
    Travis
  • But how do you really feel? Ha!
    Truth be told, I've only started consuming CNN more regularly over the past month or so, but I've been pretty satisfied. It is a shame that so many of their pundits are just partisan talking points robots, but they have some good contributors too. I did more with podcasts and less with news shows during the election so I can't speak to any of that, but I've been pretty satisfied with what I've seen. Aforementioned "robots" aside, I do like that they try to bring in the viewpoints of both sides of the aisle. One thing I really wish is that they would have some true independents speak on things. They get too engulfed in the "party" perspectives sometimes and it just gets disingenuous and annoying. I do think they have some really good people over there though, at least from my limited consumption. I like Jake Tapper, and I like Anderson Cooper for the most part.
    Brawn
  • Travis said:

     I do like that they try to bring in the viewpoints of both sides of the aisle.




    At face value, that's a good thing - the more points of view, the more perspectives etc the better.

    Having said that, in their efforts to be fair and balanced -to borrow a slogan from another network!- they've (probably unintentionally) presented a lot of false equivalencies and misrepresentations of issues.  For example,  when talking about something like climate change they'll bring on a pro and a con expert to debate the topic.  That gives the viewer the impression that there isn't a consensus view of climate change, that it's 50/50 toss up about which side is right.  It would be more accurate to bring on 10 experts, 9 of them pro and 1 con to give a more fair representation of the facts.  The same thing with something like back ground checks for gun buyers, they'll bring on one person in favour and another who isn't - again giving the 50/50 impression, when in reality the pro side is about 80% (including the majority of NRA members!).

    Their desire to present both sides of a topic is good, but too often they unintentionally lend credibility to a marginalized view by how they present the topic.  I'm not against all sides being heard, but they could do a better job of more accurately framing and contextualizing their discussions.



    tom_gTravis
  • I voted for the non nuclear war option. I fear that more than anything else for the next decade-ish. More than first amendment or health care or whatever else we all are harping about. It's a very, very, serious threat. Call me irrational or a fear mongerer. I hope to hell you're right.
  • MichaelG said:

    I voted for the non nuclear war option. I fear that more than anything else for the next decade-ish. More than first amendment or health care or whatever else we all are harping about. It's a very, very, serious threat. Call me irrational or a fear mongerer. I hope to hell you're right.




    I agree, and put climate change on the same level.  To my mind, those are both very real existential threats to humanity.  Trump pushes us in the wrong direction on both.

    MichaelG
  • MichaelG said:

    I voted for the non nuclear war option. I fear that more than anything else for the next decade-ish. More than first amendment or health care or whatever else we all are harping about. It's a very, very, serious threat. Call me irrational or a fear mongerer. I hope to hell you're right.




    I agree, and put climate change on the same level.  To my mind, those are both very real existential threats to humanity.  Trump pushes us in the wrong direction on both.

    Yea, I agree. It's like, climate change is the stage III cancer diagnosis. It's coming but we have options and a chance. But while we are sitting here getting the chemo treatment, there's a loaded gun pointed straight at our face. Get that shit out of my face, man.
    CretanBull
  • Trump calls for insurance for all to replace the ACA in phone interview with the Washington Post.  What the hell?
  • tom_g said:

    Trump calls for insurance for all to replace the ACA in phone interview with the Washington Post.  What the hell?

    he says a lot of things.
    Vasilnate1Travistom_gDummy
  • voodoorat said:

    tom_g said:

    Trump calls for insurance for all to replace the ACA in phone interview with the Washington Post.  What the hell?

    he says a lot of things.
    that's the accidental "genius" of what he's doing.  He says dumb shit EVERYDAY, so the pundits never have time to follow up on the dumb shit he said yesterday, it never gets any legs.  I think if he ever stopped saying dumb shit he would die, he's always gotta keep the idiocy moving forward, he's like a shark a really really dumb fucking shark. 
    Travis
  • Travis said:


    At face value, that's a good thing - the more points of view, the more perspectives etc the better.

    Having said that, in their efforts to be fair and balanced -to borrow a slogan from another network!- they've (probably unintentionally) presented a lot of false equivalencies and misrepresentations of issues.  For example,  when talking about something like climate change they'll bring on a pro and a con expert to debate the topic.  That gives the viewer the impression that there isn't a consensus view of climate change, that it's 50/50 toss up about which side is right.  It would be more accurate to bring on 10 experts, 9 of them pro and 1 con to give a more fair representation of the facts.  The same thing with something like back ground checks for gun buyers, they'll bring on one person in favour and another who isn't - again giving the 50/50 impression, when in reality the pro side is about 80% (including the majority of NRA members!).

    Their desire to present both sides of a topic is good, but too often they unintentionally lend credibility to a marginalized view by how they present the topic.  I'm not against all sides being heard, but they could do a better job of more accurately framing and contextualizing their discussions.



    That is a fair point, to be sure. I guess I always just find that when people try to deny climate change (as a good example) they just always seem to sound foolish/blatantly serving an interest to me to begin with. Maybe it has to do with just how much of a minority climate change deniers and how publicized that fact is, but I do see the danger in what you're saying. Luckily, I didn't see anyone trying to support some of the racism that was coming out during the campaign or it may have left a much different taste in my mouth. I suppose whenever I see someone denying climate change though I just kind of tune them out because I just assume they have no credibility. Also, it does seem that the host/moderator does try to hit them with facts in the shows I've seen. It, of course, often ends with "agree to disagree" but it always seems to come up that ~90% of scientists totally disagree with the denier viewpoint. I see where you're coming from though, definitely.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • kingbee67kingbee67 Los Angeles Ca.
    January 20, I'm banning this usurper and all the hype that goes with his destroying the American dream. This is the abortion of everything we have done to make this world a better place. So I pledge a big "FUCK YOU!" To anyone who supports the bullshit, racism and hatred that these inhumans are shoving up our ass.... just sayin.
    tom_ghisdudeness915CretanBull
  • This is some Hunger Games looking shit right here.

    image
    tom_ghisdudeness915CretanBullTravisMichelleUnderwood
  • I never understood climate change denial. Let's say that the scientists are all wrong and instead of the disastrous consequences being certain, there was only a 5% chance of disaster. Shouldn't that still be enough to spur people to action? So even if you think that scientists are completely blowing things out of proportion, the smart thing would still be to be cautious and try to address it. But hey, let's go even a step further: let's imagine the scientists are completely wrong. Is making the world a less polluted place anyways so bad? We'll have to transition away from fossil fuels at some point anyways. Climate change denial is the ultimate expression of becoming a partisan stooge.
    tom_gDeeTravisStackpileadampaszBrawn
  • This is how I picture Donald and Barron Trump in the White House:


  • edited January 2017
    So orange is officially the new black.

    Trump giving his inaugural speech:

    image
    April_May_June
  • FernNYC17FernNYC17 New York, NY


    Kinda Feeling like Padme right now
    TaraC73
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • I'll just leave this here:


    ghm3hisdudeness915kingbee67cdriveVasilnate1April_May_JuneGredalBeetpelzyMichelleBrawnand 1 other.
  • This thread is comedy gold. Please keep up the great work.
This discussion has been closed.