The Donald Trump Thread

Hah, that's just incredible.


But it wasn't that many FakeNews stories there, it was more like blatant hypocrisy, and that is just as bad, if not even worse than lies.

I dont know if everyone can see them so I paste them in here - it's really worth it.

PS: Without checking out each of these stories we have to take this collection at face value. It would have been nice if they had added the direct sources (links), since it's not that hard to fake a few headlines and add your own text. Maybe someone here, with time on their hand, can fact-check them.


























































































































 
Last edited:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40192255

I've got a financial bet with my dad that Trump will be gone by Christmas Yule. Good or bad wager?

Edit: I made the bet last Yule.
I have a similar bet with a family friend ... NZ$100 that Trump doesn't last a full term. I can't believe he can go on for much longer without some dire dirt from his past being unearthed. I'd imagine there must be a small army of investigative journalists digging away furiously.
 
I know this is a post from long ago, and is one to which I've already responded, but I've been talking with a Muslim friend, whose view is that the Quran only justifies violence in self-defence - so I came back to this verse in particular, since it seems to be the worst of those which you (Red) supplied, and I did a bit of reading for context.

Wikipedia lays it out quite nicely in the article, Sword Verse. The take-away is this (my bolding):

"According to several mainstream Islamic scholars, the verse relates to a specific event in Islamic history -- namely that Arabian pagans made and broke a covenant with Arabic Muslims. The verses immediately preceding and following 9:5, 9:4 and 9:6, make the context very clear: Only those pagans who broke the covenant were subject to violent repercussions, so that any pagans who honoured the covenant or repented their betrayal were to be spared".

It is helpful, too, I think, to see the verse in context with the verses which surround it (quoted from the Wikipedia article - unlike the Bible, verse numbers follow each verse rather than preceding it; emboldening mine):

"An acquittal, from God and His Messenger, unto the idolaters with whom you made covenant: (1) 'Journey freely in the land for four months; and know that you cannot frustrate the will of God, and that God degrades the unbelievers.' (2) A proclamation, from God and His Messenger, unto mankind on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage: 'God is quit, and His Messenger, of the idolaters. So if you repent, that will be better for you; but if you turn your backs; know that you cannot frustrate the will of God. And give thou good tidings to the unbelievers of a painful chastisement; (3) excepting those of the idolaters with whom you made covenant, then they failed. you naught neither lent support to any man against you. With them fulfil your covenant till their term; surely God loves the godfearing. (4) Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. (5) And if any of the idolaters seeks of thee protection, grant him protection till he hears the words of God; then do thou convey him to his place of security -- that, because they are a people who do not know. (6) How should the idolaters have a covenant with God and His Messenger? -- excepting those with whom you made covenant at the Holy Mosque; so long as they go straight with you, do you go straight with them; surely God loves the godfearing. (7)"

Notice that from the second half of verse 4, instructions are given to "let [those who repent] go their way", to "grant protection" to those unbelievers who seek it, and to "convey [them] to [their] place of security", and that "excepting those with whom you made covenant at the Holy Mosque; so long as they go straight with you, do you go straight with them" - hardly compatible with a view that this verse sanctions indiscriminate killing of non-Muslims, let alone in the modern age!

Notice also that the chapter begins with an "acquittal" of the betrayers of the covenant: that they may travel freely for four months.

In summary: this verse has been cherry-picked and utterly misrepresented.
In other words, convert or die.

The mental gymnastics that you have to go through to show how the Quran promotes peace over domination is incredible.

Thankfully most muslims are peaceful despite their religious text which to many is as relevant today as it was 1400 years ago.
 
B

Backup Liker 2 the Backup

I have to tip my fedora to you Hurm, there are some people who are REALLY clinging on and will never let go. You do at least have a threshold to which your principles can be stretched.
Methinks you are giving Hurm a little too much credit here (and he tacitly accepts it.) All he said is that Trump is of no use to him.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

Why Is Donald Trump Enabling Russian Espionage in America?

How the Obama administration mishandled clandestine Russian interference in last year’s election has become the talk of the town—and social media—thanks to a new, detailed report by The Washington Post. That piece portrays a White House in disarray through 2016, unable to decide what to do about Kremlin meddling, despite high-grade intelligence confirming Vladimir Putin ordered his spy services to create electoral mayhem in America.

Of course, I told you that months ago, and Barack Obama’s reputation for diffidence and indecision—particularly regarding Russia, which was by no means confined to 2016—will mar his administration’s legacy, deservedly so. Obama’s fateful lack of pushback against the Kremlin will hang over last year’s election as the preeminent what-if for future historians to unravel.

Nevertheless, President Obama’s mistakes on Russia are now confined to the past, while his successor keeps making them in real time. Donald Trump’s recent tweets have only added to the mystery of his relationship with Moscow, which is the subject of no less than four major Washington investigations: by the FBI, by both houses of Congress, and by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

After months of protesting that the issue of Russian interference in last year’s election was wholly fake, conjured by liberals and journalists, the president at last conceded (or at least strongly seemed to) that Moscow had, in fact, done something nefarious in 2016. Trump subsequently opined that the real collusion with the Kremlin had been done by Obama – without adding any details – and that the current White House resident is therefore owed an apology by the media!

It’s difficult to know what to make of all this. All that can be stated for certain at present is that widely reported efforts by the president’s lawyers to get their client to stop sending inflammatory tweets which might be used against Trump by investigators and prosecutors have wholly failed.
Indeed, President Trump continues to try to meet one-on-one with his Russian counterpart, despite the fact that, to a normal White House, the very last thing the president should want to do is be seen pow-wowing with the foreign leader whom America’s spy agencies have named as a hostile actor who meddles in our elections. It’s difficult to understand how a face-to-face meeting with Putin can help Trump in the multiple investigations he’s facing about his ties to…Putin.

Then there’s the fact that the Trump administration has been slow-rolling efforts to push back against Kremlin lies and propaganda. Last December, Congress passed and the president signed into law a State Department effort to finally start debunking propaganda emanating from Russia of the noxious kind which played an insidious role in our 2016 election. Contrary to the law, nothing of consequence has been done over the past half-year, and the State Department still has no functioning effort to counter Kremlin lies.

That said, Foggy Bottom’s decisions regarding the Russians now appear worse than merely ignoring the will of Congress. According to a new report from Politico, State is derelict in its duty to monitor the activities of Russian diplomats in our country. Keep in mind that not less than one-third of those diplomats are actually spies, and they are supposed to report to the State Department when they plan to travel more than 25 miles from their duty station, customarily with 48 hours’ notice.

That gives the FBI and other American counterspies time to prepare to monitor illegal Russian espionage activities in our country. Yet, to the frustration of our Intelligence Community, State is failing to force compliance from Russian “diplomats,” despite the fact that Congress in May ordered the department to get serious about its counterintelligence responsibilities here.

This is a touchy matter because Russian “diplomats” have become increasingly aggressive in their espionage in America. It got worse under Obama, whose White House never took countering foreign espionage very seriously, and has exploded since Trump moved into the Oval Office. Russian spies have been observed roaming across America at will, without any pushback from State, which is supposed to supervise their activities and punish violations.

Nobody’s stopping these aggressive Russian spy-games, as Politico reported a few weeks ago...
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

On the flip side:

CNN Journalists Resign: Latest Example of Media Recklessness on the Russia Threat

THREE PROMINENT CNN journalists resigned Monday night after the network was forced to retract and apologize for a story linking Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment fund under congressional investigation. That article — like so much Russia reporting from the U.S. media — was based on a single anonymous source, and now, the network cannot vouch for the accuracy of its central claims.

In announcing the resignation of the three journalists — Thomas Frank, who wrote the story; Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Eric Lichtblau, recently hired away from the New York Times; and Lex Haris, head of a new investigative unit — CNN said that “standard editorial processes were not followed when the article was published.” The resignations follow CNN’s Friday night retraction of the story, in which it apologized to Scaramucci...
BUT CNN IS hardly alone when it comes to embarrassing retractions regarding Russia. Over and over, major U.S. media outlets have published claims about the Russia Threat that turned out to be completely false — always in the direction of exaggerating the threat and/or inventing incriminating links between Moscow and the Trump circle. In virtually all cases, those stories involved evidence-free assertions from anonymous sources that these media outlets uncritically treated as fact, only for it to be revealed that they were entirely false.

Several of the most humiliating of these episodes have come from the Washington Post. On December 30, the paper published a blockbuster, frightening scoop that immediately and predictably went viral and generated massive traffic. Russian hackers, the paper claimed based on anonymous sources, had hacked into the “U.S. electricity grid” through a Vermont utility.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

In fairness, found another side to this argument:

Russia investigation: Obama did the right thing


Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush: Each of these presidents who either couldn’t or wouldn’t run again would have faced a huge conundrum if they found out that Russia was aiding their hoped-for successor’s opponent. (The closest this actually once came to happening was Nixon’s 1968 dealings with the North Vietnamese government to delay peace negotiations with the outgoing Johnson administration in an effort to hurt the candidacy of LBJ’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic nominee. But neither the Humphrey campaign nor the Johnson White House knew about the collusion.)
 
I have a similar bet with a family friend ... NZ$100 that Trump doesn't last a full term. I can't believe he can go on for much longer without some dire dirt from his past being unearthed. I'd imagine there must be a small army of investigative journalists digging away furiously.
The interesting thing is that if such dirt exists, why have the media that want to attack him, made up the rubbish that is documented above? During the election campaign, Donald Trump brought in four women (before one of the televised debates) who claimed (on camera) that they had been sexually abused/raped by Bill Clinton, and one of them also accused Hilary Clinton of putting pressure on her not to go to the police. The media did absolutely nothing with that story - I don't even know if it has been investigated in any way.

Meanwhile CNN - a once respectable broadcasting station - has been so keen to implicate Donald Trump in something - anything - that they themselves are now in deep trouble.

Notice how our very own BBC is likewise incredibly eager to report any allegation against the president, but good news about Donald Trump is buried as far as possible.

David
 
Notice how our very own BBC is likewise incredibly eager to report any allegation against the president, but good news about Donald Trump is buried as far as possible.

David
There's good news about Donald Trump? I guess if your name is Putin it is nothing but good news - he must be aching from laughing so much.

For the record, I have no love for the mass media either, including the BBC which has shown its bias in other areas (how Kuenssberg still has a job is beyond me). Far worse are the right wing, billionaire-owned rags such as (in the UK) The Sun, The Express, the London Evening Standard and the Daily Mail. I'd rather read Private Eye and join Putin in a good laugh.
 
Top