Trump Regime thread.

[blotsfan 2,112]

https://twitter.com/meakoopa/status/919944347591770112

[Thanatos 2,847]

As I have repeated multiple times: Pence would be worse than Trump.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I get why you think that, I just can't agree. He would be so much better diplomatically. Trump has set international relations back so much that Pence would at least start to undo.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Warning: Long as shit article inbound

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/the-danger-of-president-pence/amp

Edited October 16, 2017 by Olenna4Ever

[seanbrock 1,684]

We're presented with a bunch of false choices for president. I don't even think Trump has much of an effect on foreign policy. They might think he's an asshole but our economy is so huge what choice do they have but to deal with him for 4 years? Nobody is going to START a war with the US and Trump would have the same motivations as anyone else to go to war. His donors want it and he's gonna profit.

 

So apparently Russia has colluded with the Clinton Foundation lololololololololololol

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration#bottom-story-socials

Edited October 17, 2017 by Zack_of_Steel

[Thanatos 2,847]

Kim Jon Un very well might. It would be suicide, but the dude is straight crazy.

 

Also, while I could completely see that story being true, the Hill is an flat out alt-right mockery of a "news" site.

 

I'd like to see an alternative source, because when I googled it, the only even semi-reliable source that was reporting it was the NY Post, which is basically the conservative counterpart to the NY Times.

 

The other sources are Fox News, Daily Mail, Info Wars, and Daily Wire, so I trust you understand my skepticism.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Thanatos

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Just because a site may be conservative leaning doesn't mean the information is inherently wrong. I thought most of the information was common knowledge anyway. Unless people think that Hillary Clinton signed off on giving Putin 20% of our Uranium for no reason at all -- which take more gullibility than believing / trusting a conservative source for news, in my mind.

[Thanatos 2,847]

It's not just conservative leaning, its the Hill. I mean, it's above the Daily Mail, but just barely. I'd just like to see an actual reliable source confirm this, they could very easily be twisting what exactly is in that report.

 

The only reason why I am skeptical on it is because kinda exactly what you just typed. Conservative news media claims that Hillary signed off on giving Russia the uranium, which she did not. She was one member of 9, and the chairwoman is the one who gave the go ahead, and Obama signed it. But Fox News and their ilk ran it as "Hillary signs off on giving uranium to Putin" which was completely not what happened.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I like how you use liberally biased media sources like Snopes while decrying conservative ones. lol. I have no problem with people trying to denounce sources and questioning them. That's the right thing to do. But I think you (general sense of the word) lose credibility when a source is used that is so drastically draped in a facade.

 

You probably won't see this story in a lot of more liberal outlets.. They don't want to give the story more weight than it already has. It's called an agenda (just like how the right leaning outlets will exaggerate and definitely carry the story for the opposite reasons).

It's an undeniable fact that Russian money was flowing immensely to the Clintons leading up to this deal. It's an undeniable fact that Russian media outlets were celebrating the acquisition of Uranium One as a HUGE victory over the United States and frankly the world.

 

I am not denying your claim or others that there were more people involved and that it wasn't Clinton's decision alone. But with the power and influence of the Clinton's I think it is fair to say they are going to get a lot more attention and criticism that lesser known (but probably equally or even more evil) people.

How many NFL players can you name, without looking it up, who have knelt / raised a fist / or otherwise protested the anthem? I guarantee you'd miss more than a few (as would most people). But I bet you know about Colin Kaepernick. I bet you've read a million stories about him doing it. Same concept, just not... completely evil.

 

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

 

New York Times article dated April of 2015

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Edited October 18, 2017 by Olenna4Ever

[Thanatos 2,847]

Do we now srsly consider sites like Daily Mail, the Hill, and their ilk to be actual conservative sources? I always dismissed them outright because they weren't even on the level of Fox News. They've been a bastion of conspiracy theories and yellow journalism for years now.

 

I legit did not realize people thought Snopes was liberally biased. I thought that was a joke based on the current President's aversion to facts. Can you provide an example or two of that?

 

So you think all of big media is sitting on this because they don't want people to know about it?

 

Edit: A very interesting article. I need to look into this more.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Thanatos

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Fox News is reporting this. It's under FBI Investigation and the Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating / has opened a probe into the matter. I am not sure why you feel that that isn't enough, but that is your choice.

 

I didn't say all big media. I said liberal media. It's going to either officially break into something that can';t be ignored, in which they will then report on it or it will quietly disappear where they will continue to ignore it.

I don't need to post evidence of Snopes, I think the article you posted does that enough. Read their articles, read the backgrounds on the people who write for them and who founded their site. I am not even saying that's a bad thing, they can slant whatever they want to however they want to. Read your Snopes article, then read the NY Times article.. The NY Times isn't infallible, but I will take their reporting over Snopes every single day of the week. And you may not take the Hill seriously, but apparently their article had enough traction that Snopes felt the need to cite them in the article you posted. Call them what you want, but they seem relevant and credible 'enough'.

 

Edited October 18, 2017 by Olenna4Ever

[Thanatos 2,847]

The Hill is a garbage news site, fullstop. They have reported multiple times on things that were factually untrue or incredibly misleading. It does not mean that everything they put out is false. It does mean I view it with a skeptical eye if its not backed by someone else.

 

So you got nothing that shows Snopes' bias. Gotcha. I will endeavor to research it, but frankly, I just think Republicans don't like fact checking sites right now. Hard to like them when you have a President who lies with every other word out of his mouth getting shot down by said sites.

 

Edit: I was confusing the Hill with a different site. The Hill is actually more left-leaning most of the time, which thus gives this story a bit more weight, given that it is against Clinton.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Thanatos

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

May I ask why you are not commenting on the NY Times article that directly contradicts your skepticism?

[Thanatos 2,847]

First, that article is not talking about the story that the Hill is reporting on. The Hill is talking about new evidence, that article is two years old.

 

Secondly, I did, I think you missed it:

 

 

Edit: A very interesting article. I need to look into this more.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Thanatos

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Here's a good article questioning the authority of Snopes by Forbes.

Long story short, your favorite website, DailyMail wrote a piece demolishing Snopes. Forbes found it interesting some of the points that were brought up and wanted to bring insight into the fold -- so they reached out to Snopes directly to get questions answered about their process, transparency, how they fact check, etc.

Original DM piece: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html

Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#1a6f4c07227f

 

My take, which is.. just my take. Snopes is not transparent. They look for a certain type of persons to fill their "fact-checking" roles. They purposefully do not reach out to sources for comment because they are uninterested in both sides of a particular story -- but rather they are more interested in weaving the narrative they want you to parrot to other people on forums like this one or on Facebook.

Looking at Snopes without the same criticism you do of other media outlets is foolish. And for anyone who goes to or reads Snopes for "unbiased fact-checking" is nothing short of a fool themselves.

Be skeptical. But be skeptical always.

Snopes is not a harbinger of truth.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

First, that article is not talking about the story that the Hill is reporting on. The Hill is talking about new evidence, that article is two years old.

 

Secondly, I did, I think you missed it:

 

 

 

Or I just didn't go back and read your edit 5 minutes after you post. lol. Missed it works too.

 

It's a new piece to the same old puzzle. The link Sean provided directly correlates kickbacks from a Canadian trucking company back to the Uranium One deal. It definitely makes it bigger and more encompassing. But to say it isn't talking about the same thing is a bit misleading on your part I think. And it directly refutes the slanted Snopes article you posted.

[Thanatos 2,847]

That entire article is nothing but a complete ad hominem attack. Of course he can't share details on his divorce as its happening, that's standard legal procedure. Yet the author tries to make it out like this somehow means that their entire fact-checking is secretive.

 

One's sexual tendencies, kink or otherwise, does not have any bearing whatsoever on whether one can fact-check appropriately.

 

It's sheer ad hominem here.

 

FactCheck.org has already "fact-checked" Snopes, and found them to be free of bias on the articles they were looking at, though this was back in 2012.

 

The Daily Mail has a vested interest in going after Snopes, because Snopes debunks their trash articles on the regular.

 

There is no such thing as a complete unbiased, 100% reliable source. Snopes has been pretty damn good over the years, however.

 

Edit: It's not misleading at all, you know what I mean. The accusations have been out there for awhile, there was no proof of them. That's the whole point. The Hill claims to have proof of it.

 

The Times article could be 100% true and the Hill's story 100% false. The veracity of one does not affect the other in any way.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Thanatos

[blotsfan 2,112]

I don't know much about The Hill, but the daily mail and forbes website are pure garbage.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I laughed.

 

https://twitter.com/Simpboyz/status/920834310386733058

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Thats not even funny.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Thats not even funny.

Oh I'll explain the joke then.

 

It's because Hinkley shot Reagan, which was considered a bad thing, but now we want the president to be killed because he's a meanece to America and the world.

 

As your hero said:

 

https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/746022114042478592

[seanbrock 1,684]

The Clinton Foundation is the one who received the money though.

[Vin+ 3,121]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/columnist/bell/2017/10/18/jacksonville-jaguars-owner-shad-khan-donald-trump-jealous-of-nfl-amid-failure-buy-team/777910001/

NEW YORK — Shad Khan thinks he knows the real reason Donald Trump is so obsessed with how the NFL does business.

"This is a very personal issue with him," Khan, the Jacksonville Jaguars owner, told USA TODAY Sports on Wednesday as NFL owners wrapped up two days of meetings in Lower Manhattan.

Trump, whose bid to buy the Buffalo Bills in 2014 failed, slammed one of his favorite punching bags again Wednesday, tweeting that the NFL is demonstrating “total disrespect” for the nation because it is not forcing players to stand for the national anthem.

The league and its owners generally have had little public response to Trump, though New York Giants co-owner John Mara said, facetiously, “I’m shocked,” when asked for a response to the President's tweet. But Khan didn’t hold back.

“He’s been elected President, where maybe a great goal he had in life to own an NFL team is not very likely,” said Khan, who bought the Jags in 2011 for $760 million. “So to make it tougher, or to hurt the league, it’s very calculated.”

He reiterated a description he's used before in characterizing Trump, calling him “a divider, not a uniter.”

Asked if he was aware of Trump insulting the widow of a Green Beret, LaDavid Johnson, during a phone call Tuesday when, according to Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., he told her, “He knew what he was signing up for,” Khan shook his head.

“It’s so bad," said Khan, who had seen the news reports. "It’s below the lowest of the lowest expectations. It doesn’t sound rational. It’s bizarre.”

Khan notes the irony of Trump accusing the NFL for a lack of patriotism and national pride while the President himself once again stands accused of great disrespect toward the family of a fallen soldier.

“Let’s get real," Khan said. “The attacks on Muslims, the attacks on minorities, the attacks on Jews. I think the NFL doesn’t even come close to that on the level of being offensive. Here, it’s about money, or messing with — trying to soil a league or a brand that he’s jealous of.”

Khan, a self-made billionaire who immigrated from Pakistan, contends that Trump’s flap with the NFL pales when compared to social issues, notably including Trump's proposed travel bans that target people from Muslim-majority nations.

“That’s one aspect that you can imagine — someone is getting a visa that will change their life is from a Muslim-majority country — and, now, boom, that dream to change lives, they get locked out,” Khan said. “That’s a hell of a lot more

significant than fighting some sponsors or people who want their money back because they’ve been riled up.”

Interestingly, Khan was one of seven NFL owners (also: Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, Stan Kroenke, Robert McNair, Dan Snyder and Woody Johnson) who donated significantly to Trump, providing $1 million to his inauguration fund.

Regret that now?

“I have no regrets in life,” said Khan, who founded a leading manufacturer of auto parts, and was intrigued by some of Trump's proposed economic policies.

“This ugly, toxic side sours the whole experience,” Khan said.

 

[Thanatos 2,847]

People joke about lynching Obama- hilarious.

 

People joke about Trump being killed- respect the President, its not funny guys.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Thanatos

[seanbrock 1,684]

The two party system creates an insane amount of tribalism. It's crazy because if you ask conservatives or democrats about their leadership neither is very happy with it but yet they'll defend it to the death no matter what.