So long DACA.
Nearly a million ppl...
Such a hateful motherfecking coward
Nearly a million ppl...
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Such a hateful motherfecking coward
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
- Status
Elections have consequences. Hopefully Trump's actions have major consequences for 2018 and foreseeable elections.
As predicted, every policy choice he makes going forward will be to save the base.
Anyone else addicted to youtube videos slagging off Trump? Its like a new form of entertainment, so much material, such easy comedy.
Trevor Noah, Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers and John Oliver are all excellent at it.
Love Colbert as he's so passionate about it and it does a daily vid now, he's become part of my nightly routine
Oliver is good too, I'll have to check out the others.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yet another piece of shit leaving Trumps orbit. What kind of disgusting person says stuff like this? Unreal how many people are like this in this day and age, ffs. It's so disappointing.
If he only focuses on hurricane and other things who can united people he is not a bad president at all.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
For fecks sake.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I think we all know where Mueller is going with this.
1. Financial Crimes (tax evasion/laundering etc)
2. Obstruction of Justice (firing Comey etc).
1. Financial Crimes (tax evasion/laundering etc)
2. Obstruction of Justice (firing Comey etc).
A positive. Well done.
Yeah, I don't trust a word of it. He promised to pay a donation (reported to be $1m) to the 9/11 relief fund, but he never did, quite the opposite in fact as he took $150,000 from the fund for damage to Trump Tower. He also promised to donate money to the veterans last year and never did either, he's full of shit and only says/does things for publicity.
If he does pony up the donation then fair play, but until it gets paid I don't believe it one bit.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Speculation on Twitter by a trustworthy user that we'll be getting a huge story soon.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Nice story but it's not working like that. Narratives are easy to find what matters is the proof beyond them and this video doesn't do anything in this regard. And to state that it explains "#TrumpRussia" is at best misleading and at worst straight fake news.
I must have missed the bit where the host of that video stated he was doling out hard evidence of collusion and coordination. I could have sworn he started and ended the video by saying "IF Putin and Trump made a deal what might it look like" and in-between listing out a series of facts.
The video simply points out that a number of Trump's actions go against the interests of America and its allies and in fact benefit Russia. The host is offering an explainer for people who may not have been paying attention to the consequences of Trump's seemingly baffling actions on the global stage.
Fake news is a phrase that is recklessly thrown around these days and almost never used correctly. If that video had offered deliberately misleading claims or outright lies (you know, the things Trump does everytime he opens his mouth) then it might be applicable but that's not what happened here.
(And please don't say "I was referring to random twitter guy who posted that when I said fake news" because random twitter guys tweet is vague and can be interpreted as simply "a good way to explain the suspicions around Trumps actions". Plus he's just random twitter guy.)
So he is a random twitter guy ... still jumping the ship with his comment. I wasn't complaining that the video is lacking proof, because as you say correctly that wasn't the intention. I was merely pointing out the fact that videos like this are nice to kill time but won't do anything against Trump.
Still there is a few things wrong with the video, as it is explaining things that Trump did in domestic affairs and on the global stage with a very limited (not to say biased) context. For example Trump's exit of the Paris Climate accord, which seems to be mostly about domestic interests in fossil fuels, not Russias export. Also the part about Russia sanctions is just bad reasoning, apparently Trump hasn't delivered on lifting sanctions because he has to cope with the supsicion in America about Putin. Err ... ok, mind reader.
Stuff like this just makes you loose credibility. Even moreso in a case like Trump where you don't need to speculate about things as there is enough amateurish action going on all the time.
Trump has stated on numerous occasions that he wants to lift the Russian sanctions. He has fought more being added and was publically angered when they were. To add to all that Trump has been caught lying countless times about Russia, his business dealings (or lack of them) in Russia and his relationship with various Russian figures, including Putin himself. His own Son has been caught in a huge lie about secret emails and meetings with former Russian spies and he will have to testify about it too. Sorry, but it doesn't take, nor does one need to be a mind reader, to work out Trump is lying and extremely evasive over the whole Russia thing.
You are right, it won't do anything against Trump, but that isn't its intention at all. It's basically just a video showing people who refuse to believe that there is any wrongdoing going on, what could be happening. The video clearly states throughout "what if" and doesn't actually make any firm accusations because it's not meant to be proving anything to get Trump in trouble in any way, but it is meant to be used along with other evidence to sway those who are adamant Trump is completely innocent in all of this, when it is perfectly clear to anyone who cares to look, that he most definitely isn't.
I agree.
Again, I agree with regards to Trump but I disagree with the notion that something with that kind of flawed thinking is going to sway anybody who really wants to look into things.
My main issue with the video is that the reasoning used is really weak because of two things: limited context and speculating. The conclusion of flawed reasoning might still be right, but only by accident. And with right I don't mean that «Trump and Putin have something going on» but a bit more specific. In the current clima of contradicting opinions on everything and decreasing respect for the truth it's setting a bad example imo.
That's fair enough and I agree, but I think that it's going to take things like this to help sway some people. Some will never, ever be swayed, but some will and need things simplified for them to do so. Video's like this may not be the most factually correct, but they do break everything down to a format that some people may be able to relate to. I do however think the best way to sway people will be with solid evidence, the kind of which is sadly lacking at the moment, but the kind I believe that will eventually be exposed, hopefully sooner rather than later.
Again I must have missed something because I haven't seen anybody on here or in that tweet or in that video state "this is it! this is what brings Trump down! IT'S OVER!!!". That video is relevant to this topic and thusly posted in here. You're arguing/debating against something that's not happening.
My issue with your post was the use of the damn near meaningless phrase "fake news". There were no misleading or false claims in that video (or that tweet). "Fake news" is a label applicable only to deliberately misleading and untrue statements (be they in an article, a speech or otherwise).
Trump uses this phrase to describe anything that's derogatory or inconvenient towards him and now the average joe like yourself is throwing it around for fun. Sure, if you're describing an article on Infowars/The Gateway Pundit/The Palmer Report/anything that comes out of Trump's mouth* you can say "fake news" and almost certainly be correct but using it in most any other situation just undermines everything else you say.
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion on the Paris accord and Trump's motivations for withdrawing but that doesn't change the fact that his actions will benefit Russia. I disagree with your interpretation of that decision and also your comments on Russian sanctions but you're perfectly entitled to have those opinions and you're not wrong per se. We just see these actions from different viewpoints.
* - this last example is a joke. ish.
Another one out?
Bear in mind they are talking about this video possibly persuading some of those that still think the sun shines out of trumps arse, that it doesn't.
So credibility in what sense? They are getting their news from Facebook and Twitter too, watching videos and reading posts infinitely worse.
Your mistake is that you are confusing the audience, with people 'who are going to look into things'. In comparison to videos out there... I just don't see the issue.
'Heeling'
FEMA says they'll be there for years... Tens of thousands of people still in shelters... Tens of thousands of homes still underwater...100,000 homes have varying degrees of flood damage.
But, Texas is 'heeling' fast!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
FEMA says they'll be there for years... Tens of thousands of people still in shelters... Tens of thousands of homes still underwater...100,000 homes have varying degrees of flood damage.
But, Texas is 'heeling' fast!
That's right Texans. He considers the people of Lone Star State as obedient dogs.
Bone spurs on his mind.
If the Russians are so opposed to the Paris Agreement, why did they sign on for it?
Image. Russia are for all intents and purposes an international pariah and their state objectives rarely align with many other countries. The Paris accord has two required steps - signing and ratifying. Signing up for it is the equivalent of saying "yeah, that sounds nice" without formally committing to the agreement. It's an easy win for a country with a poor image.
The ratification is the "yup, we're committed and this is now law as of [insert date here]". Currently there are 30+ countries yet to ratify their position with Russia being one of those. There's no set deadline for this and no real expectation the Russians will ever do so.
See Javi's favourite video linked a few posts back if you want a little more detail around why Russia would prefer the accord to just disappear (and why Trumps withdrawal benefits them in a more general sense). Short answer is Russia wants everyone to keep using fossil fuels.
What were you expecting ? A glimpse into Mueller's files replete with photos of Putin, Assange, and Trump chortling in unison whilst sharing files and photos over coffee?
Last edited:
- Status