skinfan2k Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Donald Trump for ratings is a great thing for networks and the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 31 minutes ago, twa said: It is scary, what is scarier is bias clearly exists in the media. It's not bias. You think the media would have treated Kasich the same way? The media treats Trump like a putz, a national embarrassment, and a danger to our country because that's what he is. That's like all the crying that went on about the media covering the Redskins like they were a clown show for years when that's exactly what they were. Lo and behold, they start acting like a grown up organization and the media starts treating them like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 33 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: It's not bias. Define it's in this context. 41 minutes ago, skinfan2k said: Donald Trump for ratings is a great thing for networks and the media. they gotta get the ratings and clicks....tis just business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Trump 's day or reckoning will only happen; if he total bombs as president. If his pro-business, pro- Russian, right wing administration is successful in making America Great Again; then the people he voted for him won't care about anything else. Heck, Trump would probably get more followers on his way to a reelection in 2020. I fully expect an erasure of the entire legacy of the Obama administration. I also expect the right wing GOP to attempt not only undo John's Great Society programs but Roosevelts's New Deal programs. The right can't lose. They have someone who really doesn't care much about the issues other than trade and immigration and they agree with him on immigration. Trump will just rubber stamp everything else and if he doesn't; they will impeach him and have their right winger: Mike Pence in place. I expect a dark 4 years. Those so call benefits are only going to benefits the upper income levels. The people who voted for him aren't getting their jobs back. There will be some show moves like Carrier but whatever jobs comes back; will be mostly automated. So, no real benefit to the average working person but to the owner/stockholders. I give Trump 2 years. I think in January 2019 he will either quit or he will be impeached. I think Mike Pence will be our 46th President and the next elected president will be POTUS #47. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 4 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said: I give Trump 2 years. I think in January 2019 he will either quit or he will be impeached. I think Mike Pence will be our 46th President and the next elected president will be POTUS #47. I think (read: hope & pray) it happens a whole lot sooner than that. But in your scenario, I also believe POTUS #47 will most assuredly be a Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 9m Can you imagine if the election results were the opposite and WE tried to play the Russia/CIA card. It would be called conspiracy theory! Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 7m Unless you catch "hackers" in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn't this brought up before election? I heard there was a chance of snow this week. But I keep seeing the same delicate snowflake over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Squirm much, Donald? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Breaking News @BreakingNews 2m Report: Trump meeting with Carly Fiorina on Monday to discuss job of director of national intelligence - NYT nyti.ms/2gRFNtu Just noting that Carly sold millions worth of HP tech/equipment to Iran. At least that's what Breitbart said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 I like Carly but that seems a odd fit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Saw a tweet either from Jaffy or retweeted by him. Basically, Trump is dangling cabinet spots in front of former rivals/detractors. It keeps them from rebelling between now and January 21, when he consolidates power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 On 12/11/2016 at 11:15 AM, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: "I'm like, a smart person" ~President Trump Have you listened to the audio? I heard it on the radio this morning. Right as he says this a bell goes off in the background... ding! He doesn't seem to notice, but it's like he's on a game show and he just gave a wrong answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 4 hours ago, @SkinsGoldPants said: Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 9m Can you imagine if the election results were the opposite and WE tried to play the Russia/CIA card. It would be called conspiracy theory! Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 7m Unless you catch "hackers" in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn't this brought up before election? I heard there was a chance of snow this week. But I keep seeing the same delicate snowflake over and over. What I don't get is why it (the Russian hack) is considered to be new news. When Wikileaks released the DNC emails everyone was saying it was the Russians then (and generally most believed it too - I did) now the CIA is assessing that it was in fact a Russian in attempt to influence the election. We already knew that and knew it before the election. So why the silliness erupting on the internet now (demands for election redoes, Presidential nullification of the election, Electoral College shenanigans etc etc? - most of which are unconstitutional). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 7 minutes ago, nonniey said: What I don't get is why it (the Russian hack) is considered to be new news. When Wikileaks released the DNC emails everyone was saying it was the Russians then (and generally most believed it too - I did) now the CIA is assessing that it was in fact a Russian in attempt to influence the election. We already knew that and knew it before the election. So why the silliness erupting on the internet now (demands for election redoes, Presidential nullification of the election, Electoral College shenanigans etc etc? - most of which are unconstitutional). If I had to guess. The McConnell's and Ryan's of the world who wanted to just shrug it off, have seen something that is pretty damning from the Intelligence community that the public hasn't......yet. Damning enough that if they ignore it and at least don't pretend to do an investigation, they would look to stand with enemies of the United States. Self preservation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 14 minutes ago, nonniey said: What I don't get is why it (the Russian hack) is considered to be new news. When Wikileaks released the DNC emails everyone was saying it was the Russians then (and generally most believed it too - I did) now the CIA is assessing that it was in fact a Russian in attempt to influence the election. We already knew that and knew it before the election. So why the silliness erupting on the internet now (demands for election redoes, Presidential nullification of the election, Electoral College shenanigans etc etc? - most of which are unconstitutional). I think what it has re-set it off is at least the apparent consideration of a pro-Russian Secretary of State coupled with Trumps continued denial of it being the Russians. If he was still talking about Romney as SoS and shut up about it not being the Russians, then it would be less of an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 18 minutes ago, nonniey said: What I don't get is why it (the Russian hack) is considered to be new news. When Wikileaks released the DNC emails everyone was saying it was the Russians then (and generally most believed it too - I did) now the CIA is assessing that it was in fact a Russian in attempt to influence the election. We already knew that and knew it before the election. So why the silliness erupting on the internet now (demands for election redoes, Presidential nullification of the election, Electoral College shenanigans etc etc? - most of which are unconstitutional). The rub is in that while we knew it was the Russians, we didn't know why, or at least there wasn't enough evidence to say definitively why. Prior to the election, the leading theory was that the Russians were simply trying the sow discord and confusion, and just sort of generally undermine things, not really tip it one way or the other. Obviously, involvement to assist Trump had some strong circumstantial evidence, but apparently nothing concrete. My understanding is that AFTER the election is when they got some more concrete evidence that the Russians acted specifically to help Trump, hence why it's "new." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 9 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said: The rub is in that while we knew it was the Russians, we didn't know why, or at least there wasn't enough evidence to say definitively why. Prior to the election, the leading theory was that the Russians were simply trying the sow discord and confusion, and just sort of generally undermine things, not really tip it one way or the other. Obviously, involvement to assist Trump had some strong circumstantial evidence, but apparently nothing concrete. My understanding is that AFTER the election is when they got some more concrete evidence that the Russians acted specifically to help Trump, hence why it's "new." Disagree - of course we knew why - We knew the Russians preferred Trump and wanted him to win - at least one Right Wing pundit came out and said he was voting for Hillary because he didn't want Putin's man in the White House. We also believed they got to the RNC emails and the reason they didn't release those was because of their partiality for Trump. Heck there were lots of flaky worries that the Russians would hack the voting machines to give Trump the win. So yes we knew the Russians wanted Trump to win and wanted to tip the election toward him. Nothing really new has come out since then other than a CIA assessment that said the same thing we already knew. I think Peters explanation above is a good one on why it is important now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Didn't the one sided aspect of the leaks suggest that Russia favored Trump, not to mention his fawning admiration of Putin? I never brought the idea that the RNC and its members had far greater cyber security than the Dems. Tillerson is practically a smoking gun. Add: nonniey stated it more eloquently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 35 minutes ago, nonniey said: What I don't get is why it (the Russian hack) is considered to be new news. When Wikileaks released the DNC emails everyone was saying it was the Russians then (and generally most believed it too - I did) now the CIA is assessing that it was in fact a Russian in attempt to influence the election. We already knew that and knew it before the election. So why the silliness erupting on the internet now (demands for election redoes, Presidential nullification of the election, Electoral College shenanigans etc etc? - most of which are unconstitutional). So, you're ok with a hostile foreign power interfering with an American presidential election? Really not trying to be snarky here (y'all know I can be when I want to) but you seem pretty blasé about the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 6 minutes ago, nonniey said: Disagree - of course we knew why - We knew the Russians preferred Trump and wanted him to win - at least one Right Wing pundit came out and said he was voting for Hillary because he didn't want Putin's man in the White House. We also believed they got to the RNC emails and the reason they didn't release those was because of their partiality for Trump. Heck there were lots of flaky worries that the Russians would hack the voting machines to give Trump the win. So yes we knew the Russians wanted Trump to win and wanted to tip the election toward him. Nothing really new has come out since then other than a CIA assessment that said the same thing we already knew. I think Peters explanation above is a good one on why it is important now. Right. The concern is that they have information on Trump or the GOP that is being used to direct policy towards their interests. Any info about Trump specifically is probably the worst of it. Biz dealings. How much debt he has when it comes to China and Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Great.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 They seem to be trying very hard to create (at least a cold/trade) war with China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 30 minutes ago, nonniey said: Disagree - of course we knew why - We knew the Russians preferred Trump and wanted him to win - at least one Right Wing pundit came out and said he was voting for Hillary because he didn't want Putin's man in the White House. We also believed they got to the RNC emails and the reason they didn't release those was because of their partiality for Trump. Heck there were lots of flaky worries that the Russians would hack the voting machines to give Trump the win. So yes we knew the Russians wanted Trump to win and wanted to tip the election toward him. Nothing really new has come out since then other than a CIA assessment that said the same thing we already knew. I think Peters explanation above is a good one on why it is important now. "Knowing" in the public sphere and "knowing" in the intelligence community are two very different things. The CIA said nothing firm prior to the election because they didn't have enough. Don't get me wrong, there was a ton of circumstantial evidence that Russia favored Trump, an unbelievable amount of it. But there's a difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence. It appears the CIA recently gained the latter while previously only having the former. It's like the difference between placing an alleged murderer at the scene of the crime, with a motive, and with no one else around (circumstantial) and finding the gun they used with the alleged murderers fingerprints and maybe some of the victim's blood on it (direct). The former might be enough to convict, but the latter is, well, a smoking gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 46 minutes ago, LD0506 said: So, you're ok with a hostile foreign power interfering with an American presidential election? Really not trying to be snarky here (y'all know I can be when I want to) but you seem pretty blasé about the whole thing. Oh I have no problem investigating and responding to foreign powers that conduct cyber attacks on our interests. But what else do you suggest be done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.