Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1165141]So so funny that Russia is now some sort of issue when for most of the Obama presidency, Putin outmaneuvered US interest and Obama personally all over the globe.

Where was the outrage over Crimea, Ukraine, hacking and leaking across the globe, giving Snowden sanctuary, major arms deals with Iran, military action in Syria against US back troops which turned the tide where Assad is winning that war, etc.

???? You were ok with that???[/quote]

You don't have to go back to any of those. From the link that mooby posted. Maybe all titles nowadays should be done like the old Sherman and Peabody cartoons where they had two titles, but in this case one gives the pro-trump slant and one gives the anti-trump slant so it would be

[SIZE="2"]Russia Deploys Missile, Violating Treaty and Challenging Trump [I][SIZE="1"]or[/SIZE][/I] After Ignoring Treaty Ban, Russians Give Last Snub to Obama[/SIZE]

makes for longer titles, but maybe lets readers see more views

[quote]The ground-launched cruise missile at the center of American concerns is one that the Obama administration said in 2014 had been tested in violation of a 1987 treaty that bans American and Russian intermediate-range missiles based on land.

[B]The Obama administration had sought to persuade the Russians to correct the violation while the missile was still in the test phase[/B]. Instead, the Russians have moved ahead with the system, deploying a fully operational unit.[/quote]

This wasn't about challenging Trump, it was about impotent action by Pres Obama's administration for the last 4 years. The line "had sought to persuade" literally has to make you laugh and cry at the same time. It's probably just poor writing, but you can't seek to persuade a bully, well you can but it's usually by giving him a bloody nose, not by reasoned discussion.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1165151]You don't have to go back to any of those. From the link that mooby posted. Maybe all titles nowadays should be done like the old Sherman and Peabody cartoons where they had two titles, but in this case one gives the pro-trump slant and one gives the anti-trump slant so it would be

[SIZE="2"]Russia Deploys Missile, Violating Treaty and Challenging Trump [I][SIZE="1"]or[/SIZE][/I] After Ignoring Treaty Ban, Russians Give Last Snub to Obama[/SIZE]

makes for longer titles, but maybe lets readers see more views



This wasn't about challenging Trump, it was about impotent action by Pres Obama's administration for the last 4 years. The line "had sought to persuade" literally has to make you laugh and cry at the same time. It's probably just poor writing, but you can't seek to persuade a bully, well you can but it's usually by giving him a bloody nose, not by reasoned discussion.[/quote]


Eight years ago I was trying to understand the outcry from the Bush people and being told it's Obama's fault.Now you got what you wanted Trump,I don't give a rats ass if Hillary was worse or Obama did this or that. Trump has had four weeks and he has fucked it up.We need to stop with Obama and Hillary and concentrate on the ass in the office now.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Giantone;1165154]Eight years ago I was trying to understand the outcry from the Bush people and being told it's Obama's fault.Now you got what you wanted Trump,I don't give a rats ass if Hillary was worse or Obama did this or that. Trump has had four weeks and he has fucked it up.We need to stop with Obama and Hillary and concentrate on the ass in the office now.[/quote]

hilarious. The whole article happened before Trump took office. Yes he needs to get a handle on it, but sorry geopolitical standoffs don't resolve the day the US puts a new president in. I will make this promise to the board - by the end of this year, you will not hear me say "Obama left {add subject here} in {add condition here} so it's not Trump's fault". Most likely I will turn to the Republican congress and blame them but after 9 months (randomly chosen time frame less then a year more than 6 months) Trump will certainly bear the burden of what is going on in the country and in the world.

and G1 for you to remain intellectually honest with your expressed statement, I guess that means that, in your eyes, all positive economic news from Jan 20th goes squarely on Trump's positive balance sheet?

Re: What would it take?
 

I need to find the article where this neutral economist predicted that we would definitely see a bit of an economic boom if Trump got elected. He also predicted that if he does proceed with his promises we'll see a sharp drop-off after a year or two. I need to find it. Was a really good article, but some of the stuff was way over my head.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;1165156]I need to find the article where this neutral economist predicted that we would definitely see a bit of an economic boom if Trump got elected. He also predicted that if he does proceed with his promises we'll see a sharp drop-off after a year or two. I need to find it. Was a really good article, but some of the stuff was way over my head.[/quote]

I think its likely we will see a recession soon, because, well, they happen regularly:

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States[/url]

Im thinking if it happens this coming time its gonna be because of China's influence of their own changing economy and how we are depending on cheap consumer goods.

While Im not fully behind Dodd-Frank, it does do some good things...we are more prepared than ever.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1165141]So so funny that Russia is now some sort of issue when for most of the Obama presidency, Putin outmaneuvered US interest and Obama personally all over the globe.

Where was the outrage over Crimea, Ukraine, hacking and leaking across the globe, giving Snowden sanctuary, major arms deals with Iran, military action in Syria against US back troops which turned the tide where Assad is winning that war, etc.

???? You were ok with that???[/quote]



Just curious how you think Putin outmaneuvered Obama and the US? Also, what exactly were you looking for in response to counter these Russian moves?

I keep hearing this repeated so I want a genuine answer.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1165164]Just curious how you think Putin outmaneuvered Obama and the US? Also, what exactly were you looking for in response to counter these Russian moves?

I keep hearing this repeated so I want a genuine answer.[/quote]

You lead. That's how you handle it.

In most case he sat on his hands. Its just funny now why Russia is an issue when before the media and country never questioned anything. Funny how that hypocrisy works.


I listed the above outmaneuvering...Syria and Eastern Europe mostly. But political influence in the Middle east is just shocking. Did you hear, that Turkey is cuddling up with Russia now? Do you know how important Turkey is in that region?

He beat poor Obama down just bout everywhere. There was an world wide ass-kicking tour.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1165165]You lead. That's how you handle it.

In most case he sat on his hands. Its just funny now why Russia is an issue when before the media and country never questioned anything. Funny how that hypocrisy works.


I listed the above outmaneuvering...Syria and Eastern Europe mostly. But political influence in the Middle east is just shocking. Did you hear, that Turkey is cuddling up with Russia now? Do you know how important Turkey is in that region?

He beat poor Obama down just bout everywhere. There was an world wide ass-kicking tour.[/quote]


You straight avoided the answer. I'll ask it again.


In what ways do you think Putin outmaneuvered Obama and the US? Also, what exactly were you looking for in response to counter these Russian moves?

Re: What would it take?
 

Obama definitely had his failings, and maybe I'm totally off-base here, but I think the big concern with Russia is it seems like many parts of the Trump administration have some deep ties with a country that traditionally hasn't been an ally.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1165172]You straight avoided the answer. I'll ask it again.


In what ways do you think Putin outmaneuvered Obama and the US? Also, what exactly were you looking for in response to counter these Russian moves?[/quote]

I thought my response and my previous post were clear. If not, here some folks from your side who actually sum it up nicely:

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leila-hudson/how-putin-outmaneuvered-o_b_5210426.html]How Putin Outmaneuvered Obama in Syria and Ukraine | The Huffington Post[/url]

This just speaks to Ukraine and Syria.




Like I stated before, this Turkey and Iranian stuff is serious. You remember this?: [url]https://www.wsj.com/articles/turkey-shoots-down-jet-near-syria-border-1448356509[/url]

Now that takes balls....could you imagine shooting down a Russian fighter? And they didn't apologize.....

And now Turkey is at the table with Russia forming bonds and making deals...interesting. Shooting down a plane, making a statement...a serious one and now they are bargaining, forming agendas, policy....

Interesting, huh?

Re: What would it take?
 

[url=http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2017/0105/Russia-and-Turkey-close-ranks.-A-victory-for-Putin]Russia and Turkey close ranks. A victory for Putin? - CSMonitor.com[/url]

The extent to which the US is being vilified across the board [in Turkey], on a whole range of issues, obviously sets the stage for cooperation with the Russians,” says Bulent Aliriza, director of the Turkey Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington.

“From the macro-geopolitical point of view, this is obviously a victory for Russia,” says Mr. Aliriza, noting the “very clear” significance of a US and NATO ally cooperating so closely with Russia. “Within the region, it is also a victory for Russia because Turkey changed its policy almost 180 degrees in Syria.”


Outmaneuvering in Turkey...which affects parts of Europe and the Middle East

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1165140]From the article:

Administration officials said the Russians now have two battalions of the prohibited cruise missile. One is still located at Russia’s missile test site at Kapustin Yar in southern Russia near Volgograd. [B]The other was shifted in December from that test site to an operational base elsewhere in the country,[/B] according to a senior official who did not provide further details and requested anonymity to discuss recent intelligence reports about the missile.[/quote]

Fair enough, I am curious to know why the media waited to release the article. Certainly looks bad on their part trying to blame it on Trump.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1165172]You straight avoided the answer. I'll ask it again.


In what ways do you think Putin outmaneuvered Obama and the US? Also, what exactly were you looking for in response to counter these Russian moves?[/quote]

Using Crimea as an example. Russia physically took over/annexed land of another country that we had a treaty with Ukraine, Russia and us as guarantors. And they hold that land today. I would consider that an example of outmanuevering us.

As for the response, that goes to my thread on economic sanctions. Did we want to create an equivalent to the cuban missile crisis in Russia's backyard? Obviously Pres Obama did not - and I do believe public sentiment backed him in not. But would a different President, say Reagan, have found a pressure point that might have worked.

Here is one that we know Russia doesn't like, and who knows how the events would have played out, but you asked for a counter response other then what we did:

[quote]February 27th, 2014 is when Crimea's parliament was seized. March 1st the US announces in response to instability in the region, and the threat of "unknown actors" seizing Ukrainian warships with suspected cruise missile capabilities, we are moving THAAD anti-ballistic missile technology to Poland, and immediately beginning work on the long delayed abm shield.

The Russians still don't want ABM tech in Poland, and you would have put a risk to Russian goals, without dropping bombs.

Another, much more risky option, would have been blockading Kaliningrad, using the risk to Poland and Lithuania's borders as the rationale. Sure everyone knows it's really about Crimea, but again, diplomacy doesn't only mean that you roll over and let the other countries walk over your interest.[/quote]

Would either of those worked, would they have sparked WW3. I don't know. Depends on how crazy Putin is, but I would bet you Crimea would be part of Ukraine again.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1165165]You lead. That's how you handle it.

In most case he sat on his hands. Its just funny now why Russia is an issue when before the media and country never questioned anything. Funny how that hypocrisy works.


I listed the above outmaneuvering...Syria and Eastern Europe mostly. But political influence in the Middle east is just shocking. Did you hear, that Turkey is cuddling up with Russia now? Do you know how important Turkey is in that region?

He beat poor Obama down just bout everywhere. There was an world wide ass-kicking tour.[/quote]

Chico I agree that the last administration wasn't successful in reigning in Putin's unchecked abuses of power, but that's the problem. How do you successfully convince a dictator to check himself without starting a major war against arguably your biggest rival? Clearly sanctions aren't enough, and now that Trump has eliminated those what do we do now? It seems Trump's answer is to buddy up to Russia and ignore whatever line they want to cross next.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=mooby;1165183]Fair enough, I am curious to know why the media waited to release the article. Certainly looks bad on their part trying to blame it on Trump.[/quote]

Well, what I gathered was that Pres Obama's administration didn't note it in any formal announcements (and I don't know that they should have, but in December there was other news to be focused on...), and someone in NSA felt like now was the time to release it - [tinfoil] probably the same someone who thought Flynn's conversations were media worthy [/tinfoil]

The media, imo, doesn't care whether they look bad, they want as much piled on as they can, and if it's wrong or misleading they can issue a clarification in small print later.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1165155]

and G1 for you to remain intellectually honest with your expressed statement, I guess that means that, in your eyes, all positive economic news from Jan 20th goes squarely on Trump's positive balance sheet?[/quote]


I wish the Giants defense could deflect pass's like you guys are doing with Trump.This whole thread is about Trump but Trump supporters are having a hard time defending him so we turn it back on Obama who is gone.
Cred as you and I both know some is and some isn't ,might not be what you want to hear but it's the truth .Trump has fucked up all this Russian shit and it's coming back to haunt him.Could Obama had done more to stop Putin,no,he did as much diplomatically as possible.The last thing anyone wanted was another war .The last thing he was going to do in an election year is tangle with Russia when Americans are sick of Iraq and Afghanistan and still on the border(of war) with Iran.people are bitching about "big goverment " and military spending but if we had gone military with Russia we would be send National Guards Men and Women to Russia to fight becuase we have outsourced the Military (thanks Mr Chaney).Obama hands were tied.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Giantone;1165195]I wish the Giants defense could deflect pass's like you guys are doing with Trump.This whole thread is about Trump but Trump supporters are having a hard time defending him so we turn it back on Obama who is gone.
Cred as you and I both know some is and some isn't ,might not be what you want to hear but it's the truth .Trump has fucked up all this Russian shit and it's coming back to haunt him.Could Obama had done more to stop Putin,no,he did as much diplomatically as possible.The last thing anyone wanted was another war .The last thing he was going to do in an election year is tangle with Russia when Americans are sick of Iraq and Afghanistan and still on the border(of war) with Iran.people are bitching about "big goverment " and military spending but if we had gone military with Russia we would be send National Guards Men and Women to Russia to fight becuase we have outsourced the Military (thanks Mr Chaney).Obama hands were tied.[/quote]

Nice to edit out the part of my quote that said, ask me in 9 months about Trump. If you think 4 weeks is enough for any administration to set it's footprint in the geopolitical realm then I re-emphasize - hilarious.

"Trump has fucked up all this Russian shit and it's coming back to haunt him" Frickin hilarious

Re: What would it take?
 

Bye Felicia

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/top-senate-republicans-urge-white-house-to-withdraw-puzder-nomination/]Andrew Puzder withdraws as a labor secretary nominee - CNNPolitics.com[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1165204]Bye Felicia

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/top-senate-republicans-urge-white-house-to-withdraw-puzder-nomination/]Andrew Puzder withdraws as a labor secretary nominee - CNNPolitics.com[/url][/quote]

This guy is back to flipping burgers....Sad!

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1165197]Nice to edit out the part of my quote that said, ask me in 9 months about Trump. If you think 4 weeks is enough for any administration to set it's footprint in the geopolitical realm then I re-emphasize - hilarious.

"Trump has fucked up all this Russian shit and it's coming back to haunt him" Frickin hilarious[/quote]


Cred you started the thread, you asked the question?What I am trying to understand is that how can you wait for 9 months with it going in the shitter after 4 weeks?What would it take for me(us), after four weeks his resignation or impeachment.Yes that is how bad it has become.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1165204]Bye Felicia

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/top-senate-republicans-urge-white-house-to-withdraw-puzder-nomination/]Andrew Puzder withdraws as a labor secretary nominee - CNNPolitics.com[/url][/quote]

This guy , Flynn, Spicer will be gone soon as will Kellyanne,who is next to be gone?

Re: What would it take?
 

[QUOTE=Giantone;1165208]Cred you started the thread, you asked the question?What I am trying to understand is that how can you wait for 9 months with it going in the shitter after 4 weeks?What would it take for me(us), after four weeks his resignation or impeachment.Yes that is how bad it has become.[/QUOTE]
We are clearly on opposite sides. My point is if he hasn't gone far enough. Imo he's just getting going and needs to be more vocal towards the Republican congress to get off its butt and step up.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

What would it take?
 

I have gone from pissed off to lovin it. I know it is bad on so many levels but it has honestly become a guilty pleasure to watch this travesty unfold. Love the right pretending like that just didn't happen...every 30 minutes too.
It is only a matter of time. He is so completely clueless and unaware of what he is doing. It is hysterical and disgusting all wrapped up into one surreal piece of American history.

Re: What would it take?
 

I honestly don't know what to think right now. Sure, there has been some epic BS (Devos, Flynn, the Executive Order roll-out), but something tells me that there is more to this than meets the eye ... and not necessarily as in "Holy Crap! This is just the tip of the BS iceberg."

On both Russian interference in the election and on cooperating with them in Syria, Mattes's comments directly contradicted Trump. Same with Nicki Haley's comments about Russia and sanctions. Trump when confronted with this sidesteps, avoids, maintains his "lets be friends / no interference" stand. It may be that he is just a lying dumbass. But, I watch the CNN commentators being completely flummoxed by his seemingly imperviousness to facts. "He either wasn't properly briefed or what he saying is illogical"; "He can't believe that statement," etc.

When he first came in he was mocked for not "draining the swamp" with his picks, now - the press, the Democratic establishment, the Republican establishment, and foreign allies and enemies are all sitting back and going "WTF??" Well, either he is crazy and we should all be building are bomb shelters and stocking up on food, water, and tradable goods we will need to survive the zombie apocalypse [B][I]OR[/I][/B] he is crazy like a fox and traditional norms of politics and diplomacy are being reset in order to halt creeping group think globalism and the extension of federal regulatory tendrils into all walks of life.

I honestly don't know which it is but, I am convinced that, just b/c it is not "business as usual" as we all sing kumbayah, it is not necessarily a bad thing.

[As a comparison, for long time Baltimore and Maryland residents, Trump is beginning to remind me of Willy Don Schaefer. In all his public appearances, WDS was buffoonish. Epically so. Newspaper reporters (the local media generally loved Willie Don - until the tired of him after about 20 years), when reporting on his speeches would edit great chunks of gibberish out of them. Rumors were constantly swirling about crap going down at the Statehouse, BUT, at the end of the day, a lot of sh** got done and done right. WDS appointed folks in key positions, let them establish their fiefdoms and then played umpire between them - it worked great for about 15 years.]

Re: What would it take?
 

As possibilities for the open minded, here are a couple of articles from established, well respected journals and journalists with a different take on the seeming chaos and/or buffoonery:

[url]https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-14/the-political-assassination-of-michael-flynn[/url]

Eli Lake is a columnist for the Bloomberg View. He was the senior national security correspondent for the Daily Beast and covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times, the New York Sun and UPI. In 2012, Lake disclosed how the UN documented U.S. violations of an arms embargo in Somalia. And his reporting has “earned praise from both conservatives and liberals.” In 2013, Lake disclosed how court documents in the U.S. government challenge to Blackwater showed that the mercenary organization was an extension of the CIA after 9-11. [From his Wikipedia bio]
Couple of excerpts from his article on Flynn:

[COLOR="Navy"]"The New York Times and Washington Post reported that the transcript of the phone call reviewed over the weekend by the White House could be read different ways. One White House official with knowledge of the conversations told me that the Russian ambassador raised the sanctions to Flynn and that Flynn responded that the Trump team would be taking office in a few weeks and would review Russia policy and sanctions. That's neither illegal nor improper."

… "Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do.

In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). ... The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag."[/COLOR]


Then there’s this from Ivan Krastev and Steven Holmes: [url=http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/13/the-kremlin-is-starting-to-worry-about-trump/]The Kremlin Is Starting to Worry About Trump | Foreign Policy[/url]

Krastev is the chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, a permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna, a founding board member of the European Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of the Advisory Council of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). Holmes is a Professor of Law at NYU (w/ a long history in Political Science). From the article:

[COLOR="navy"]“The search for a key to Trump’s mind-boggling and miscellaneous gusher of policy directives has tended to focus on his disturbingly erratic, vindictive, simplistic, narcissistic, insecure, and occasionally delusional personality, due exception being made for those conspiracy theorists who treat him as a kind of Manchurian candidate or sock puppet of the Kremlin. What most observers have been late to recognize is the extent to which, [B]behind his mask as a showman, Trump views himself as a revolutionary insurgent with a mission to dismantle America’s “old regime.”[/B]

… “What we are witnessing now,” [Steve] Bannon told the Washington Post, “is the birth of a new political order, and the more frantic a handful of media elites become, the more powerful that new political order becomes itself.”

… What the Kremlin fears most today is that Trump may be ousted or even killed. His ouster, Kremlin insiders argue, is bound to unleash a virulent and bipartisan anti-Russian campaign in Washington. [B]Oddly, therefore, Putin has become a hostage to Trump’s survival and success. This has seriously restricted Russia’s geopolitical options. [/b]The Kremlin is perfectly aware that Democrats want to use Russia to discredit and possibly impeach Trump while Republican elites want to use Russia to deflate and discipline Trump. The Russian government fears not only Trump’s downfall, of course, but also the possibility that he could opportunistically switch to a tough anti-Moscow line in order to make peace with hawkish Republican leaders in Congress.

Anyone who spends any time in Moscow will quickly discover that ordinary Russians, in contrast with a majority of Europeans, feel surprisingly positive about Trump. One reason is that they are exhausted at Russia’s confrontation with the West. Another is that they share Trump’s cynical, borderline apocalyptic view of international politics. [b]Like Trump, they never believed in win-win politics in the first place.[/b][/COLOR]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1165239]I honestly don't know what to think right now. Sure, there has been some epic BS (Devos, Flynn, the Executive Order roll-out), but something tells me that there is more to this than meets the eye ... and not necessarily as in "Holy Crap! This is just the tip of the BS iceberg.

Mattes, on both Russian interference in the election and on cooperating with them in Syria, comments directly contradicted Trump. Same with Nicki Haley's comments about Russia and sanctions. Trump when confronted with this sidesteps, avoids, maintains his "lets be friends / no interference" stand. It may be that he is just a lying dumbass. But, I watch the CNN commentators being completely flummoxed by his seemingly imperviousness to facts. "He either wasn't properly briefed or what he saying is illogical"; "He can't believe that statement," etc.

When he first came in he was mocked for not "draining the swamp" with his picks, now - the press, the Democratic establishment, the Republican establishment, and foreign allies and enemies are all sitting back and going "WTF??" Well, either he is crazy and we should all be building are bomb shelters and stocking up on food, water, and tradable goods we will need to survive the zombie apocalypse [B][I]OR[/I][/B] he is crazy like a fox and traditional norms of politics and diplomacy are being reset in order to halt creeping group think globalism and the extension of federal regulatory tendrils into all walks of life.

[B]I honestly don't know which it is but, I am convinced that, just b/c it is not "business as usual" as we all sing kumbayah, it is not necessarily a bad thing. [/B]
[As a comparison, for long time Baltimore and Maryland residents, Trump is beginning to remind me of Willy Don Schaefer. In all his public appearances, WDS was buffoonish. Epically so. Newspaper reporters (the local media generally loved Willie Don - until the tired of him after about 20 years), when reporting on his speeches would edit great chunks of gibberish out of them. Rumors were constantly swirling about crap going down at the Statehouse, BUT, at the end of the day, a lot of sh** got done and done right. WDS appointed folks in key positions, let them establish their fiefdoms and then played umpire between them - it worked great for about 15 years.][/quote]

And I think this is where the problem lies...

And when it comes to CNN, Im done. Im gonna try to call Comcast this weekend and ask them to just take the channel off or black them out. They are so full of shit and devoid of fact, I seriously place them along the lines of the gameshow network.

I know what to expect from Fox and MSNBC..Im good with that, perfectly fine. But CNN was always better than that...not anymore, they are like if Huffington Post and a Communist had a devil child.

Re: What would it take?
 

Yep, CNN is tabloid hype.
They foam at the mouth about anything Trump does.
I did a comparison the other day vs them and CBS. (not that CBS is special for any reason)
Of the top seven headlines, CBS had one about Trump.
All seven of CNNs were about Trump.
And some of them had OPINION next to the title.
Why the feck would I care about some CNN hacks opinion?
Who reads this tripe?

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1165249]Yep, CNN is tabloid hype.
They foam at the mouth about anything Trump does.
I did a comparison the other day vs them and CBS. (not that CBS is special for any reason)
Of the top seven headlines, CBS had one about Trump.
All seven of CNNs were about Trump.
And some of them had OPINION next to the title.
Why the feck would I care about some CNN hacks opinion?
[B]Who reads this tripe[/B]?[/quote]

A ton of people. As Chico said, CNN used to be better than that. I used to view them as a left of center but generally fact based news outlet. That changed election night where at least one CNN anchor was crying as it became clear that Trump was going to win and another was plaintively moaning "What will we tell our children?" Ever since then, they have been so blatantly at war with Trump that they undermined their once solid credibility.

Re: What would it take?
 

People are really falling for this CNN is fake news BS eh? I'm already beyond tired of hearing him blaming the media for everything. Hilarious that's he's all up in arms over leaks now but when they played to his advantage during the election he was all for it. Sad!

Re: What would it take?
 

His presser today was as bizarre as they come. A fine tuned machine? You wanna talk about fake news? This guy can't open his mouth without straight up lying. [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/shep-smith-trump-media_us_58a616b3e4b07602ad52e951?"]Even Fox news was ripping him today[/URL].

Now this breaking news:

[url=http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/320015-trumps-pick-to-replace-flynn-turns-down-offer-report]Trump's pick to replace Flynn turns down offer: reports | TheHill[/url]

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1165256]People are really falling for this CNN is fake news BS eh? I'm already beyond tired of hearing him blaming the media for everything. Hilarious that's he's all up in arms over leaks now but when they played to his advantage during the election he was all for it. Sad![/quote]


Agree,I'm hoping none of these news media outlets don't back down.The're only reporting what it is he is doing,it's Trump that is the shit show not the media and that press conference yesterday should be proof of just how bad it is.The Man had no idea who the CBC was.....not a clue!
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeZCmOZXBOs[/url]


There is a Russian spy ship 30 miles off the Connecticut coast and his only response ...bad,bad stuff,.....what the hell?

Re: What would it take?
 

If Trump had Reagan's ability to speak he would be far more effective. A lot of people agree with his points on the media - obviously I'm one. But I tried to read the transcript of the press conference and I nearly had to gouge my eyes out.

Kudos to NBCNews for this article:
[url=http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ignore-spy-ship-coast-russians-aren-t-coming-n722036]Ignore That Spy Ship Off the Coast. The Russians Aren't Coming - NBC News[/url]

Spy ships off our coast is nothing new -
[QUOTE]A third intelligence official said that the presence of a Russian AGI off the coast has been a constant for decades but that current frequency is nowhere near Cold War levels. The Leonov last made an appearance near the U.S. in 2015.

The Leonov also transited entirely in international waters. "So it's perfectly legal," said the official.[/QUOTE]
and, not shockingly we do the same thing
[QUOTE]The Pentagon reported that the destroyer USS Porter was "buzzed" last week in the Black Sea by Russian planes, which flew within several hundred yards of the ship.

But U.S. officials say there's more to the story. The Porter, configured as a lead ship in the European missile defense network and with various espionage capabilities, lingered within 40 miles of the Russian coast before the incident.

Officials noted that the Porter, like the Leonov, qualifies as a spy ship -- but with far greater capabilities.[/QUOTE]

Re: What would it take?
 

Remember folks, the leaks are real, the news is fake.

Anyone else disturbed by how much TV this guy watches?

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1165281]If Trump had Reagan's ability to speak he would be far more effective. A lot of people agree with his points on the media - obviously I'm one. But I tried to read the transcript of the press conference and I nearly had to gouge my eyes out.

Kudos to NBCNews for this article:
[url=http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ignore-spy-ship-coast-russians-aren-t-coming-n722036]Ignore That Spy Ship Off the Coast. The Russians Aren't Coming - NBC News[/url]

Spy ships off our coast is nothing new -

and, not shockingly we do the same thing[/quote]

CRed I get what you are saying and actually agree with you on the spy ship ,my point was his response.The Press is not the bad guy here hate to tell you ,it's Trump.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Giantone;1165294]CRed I get what you are saying and actually agree with you on the spy ship ,my point was his response.[B]The Press is not the bad guy here hate to tell you ,it's Trump[/B].[/quote]

The nuts and bolts of our disagreement. I can (and have) shown examples of mainstream press putting out knowingly false information to (viciously imo) attack Trump because they hate his agenda and positions.

When Trump puts out knowingly false information, it's usually to inflate his ego, and you discount it, because you know he's going to throw out stuff like "largest electoral margin". It's one of those "if thats what you need to tell yourself" things.

Both groups lie, both groups do it with certain motives. I consider the press' motives far more unscrupolous ESPECIALLY when like the CNN reporter did, they wrap themselves in the 1st Amendment. Yes there is an absolute freedom of the press, but "the press" isn't the same as CNN.

Can we at least agree that a president not calling on a CNN reporter at one, or multiple, news conferences, by no means should be considered attacking the 1st amendment?

Re: What would it take?
 

Its clearly fact that CNN has a strong liberal bias in all forms of media. It clearly editorializes stories that present left leaning opinions within them to sway public opinion and spread false narratives throughout the country....Likewise they suppress other stories, ideas, that don't support liberal narratives. They embellish story, asses blame without fact, and generally make assumptions.

I mean, we really aren't this stupid where we don't see this stuff...are we? Like I stated before Fox and MSNBC are clearly bias and that's great. Go to your bubble. But CNN for a long time simply didn't do this...over the last 10 years I've clearly noticed it. Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, that Brooke cunt, Cuomo, Tapper...They are all clearly liberals who praised the ex president and made it they are at war with the current one.

stuff on the internet which clearly states the case.


CNN has often been the subject of allegations of liberal bias. In research conducted by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism, the authors found disparate treatment by the three major cable networks of Republican and Democratic candidates during the earliest five months of presidential primaries in 2007: "The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates – by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral. The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with McCain faring the worst (63% negative) and Romney faring a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral. With the exception of Obama, Democrats tended not to fare well either. Nearly half of the Illinois Senator’s stories were positive (46%), vs. just 8% that were negative, but both Clinton and Edwards ended up with more negative than positive coverage overall. While Democrats on average tended to have more positive coverage, the trend was skewed by particularly positive coverage of Obama."[1]

Writer Eric Alterman has noted that many left-leaning critics view CNN as more biased than most other corporate-run journalism, supporting business interests of its parent company and sponsors, and refusing to question official sources or present perspectives of leftist critics.

Accuracy in Media and Media Research Center (MRC) have claimed that CNN's reporting contains liberal editorializing within news stories as well as omission of important facts.


Internal whistleblowing on CNN's coverage of the Bahrain protests:

On September 5, 2012 with the help of journalist Glenn Greenwald, Lyon exposed that CNN International never aired her documentary, iRevolution, on the Bahrain uprising. In an article by Greenwald in The Guardian newspaper, Lyon accuses the network of censoring the documentary because the Bahrain regime is a paying customer at the network. The article also exposes that the government of Bahrain, as well as other governments throughout the world, are paying CNN for special content casting their countries in a positive light.

On September 29, 2012, Lyon appeared on the Infowars program. She described her investigation of how the US ally Bahrain was committing human rights abuses, but said that CNN and the US government pressured her to suppress the news. She said that Bahrain paid CNN for positive news coverage.Lyon said that Kazakhstan and Georgia also paid for positive coverage by CNN.

In March 2013, a report from the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency said the "Slovak main news website" reported Lyon claiming to have received orders from CNN to report selectively and falsely in order to sway public opinion in favor of direct American aggression against Iran and Syria, and that this was common practice at CNN.

Re: What would it take?
 

^ What's the source on that?

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1165314]^ What's the source on that?[/quote]

I think both pieces are off wiki

Here a good example about this Russian spy ship:

[url=http://www.snopes.com/russian-spy-ship-east-coast/]FACT CHECK: Has a Russian Spy Ship Been Spotted Near the East Coast of the United States?[/url]

A quick search of news stories makes it clear that sightings of similar Russian vessels happen with some regularity. In July 2016, the U.S. Navy reported seeing a spy ship in international waters off the Hawaiian coast. In January 2015, the Viktor Leonov was seen docked in Havana on the eve of a historic visit by senior U.S. delegates to Cuba.

Naveed Jamali, a former intelligence operative who worked undercover for the FBI against Russian intelligence, told us the sighting isn’t surprising because it’s nothing new, and in the minds of the Russians, the U.S. is an adversary:


I spent four years working against the Russians undercover and I can say that for the Russians, the Cold War never ended and the U.S. is still their main adversary. They see that hurting the United States is in their national interest. They can’t compete with us militarily and economically and it’s easier for them to bring us down than for them to build up those capabilities, so in essence, weakening the U.S. by extension strengthens Russia. They want to be a world power again, so showing that they can reach out and touch us is a way of making that point.


All this stuff is a non story...this ship and others were in international waters during the Obama administration.

Re: What would it take?
 

I laugh every time one of these rags talks about spy ship hype and bomber intercept hype.
Its been going on since WW II ended.
And we have been doing the same to them.
Its just page filler because they cant make up enough fake news that day.
Or maybe Wolf Blitzer is on vacation.

Re: What would it take?
 

A recent story by CNN included the following facts all of which I will accept as true. In brackets, I will also include things I consider salient facts which were known at the time of CNN's story that were not included. After listing the story's reported and omitted facts, I will post the headline verbatim along with the opening and closing sentences of the article. You decide for yourself if CNN's characterization was misleading with an anti-Trump bias:

- During Presidential campaigns, it is common for candidates' staffs to have communications with foreign officials.

- During the past campaign, “high level” Trump staffers had a higher frequency of contact with Russian officials and “other Russian nationals known to US intelligence” than is normal for such staffers.

- [Only three staffers are implicated – Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Roger Stone - are under investigation as a result of these contacts.] Bloomberg - [url]https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-14/the-political-assassination-of-michael-flynn[/url]

- [The legal standard for opening such investigations is low, and prosecutions are rare.] NYT - [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=0][/url]

- [It is unclear which Russian officials were being monitored by the intelligence community, or what particular conversations caught the attention of American eavesdroppers.] Same NYT article as above.

- [Because the Russian government will imbed its operatives in its own and neighboring countries business organizations, it is not known if the staffers even realized they were talking to suspected Russian operatives.][From a Bloomberg report article, cannot find the link]

- The frequency of the contacts and the closeness of the individuals to Trump created a concern within the intelligence community.

- Shortly after the election, both Obama and Trump were notified of the communications and the concerns raised by the frequency and closeness to Trump.

- The nature and intent of the conversations was not revealed to the author of the CNN reporter.

- Intelligence investigators have not yet reached a judgment on the intent of the staffers’ conversations.

- [Of the half-dozen current and former officials who confirmed the existence of the investigations, some said they were providing information because they feared the new administration would obstruct their efforts. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the cases.] Same NYT article previously cited.

- [While still the sitting President and apparently privy to precisely what was discussed and with whom, Obama has never indicated that the communications he reviewed relating to Trump staffers were a national security risk that needed Congressional investigation.] [This is my recollection – If Obama has commented, I would be interested to see it.]