The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
I'd watch what you're putting into your morning cuppa.Bowens wrote:Maddow and Lemon are corporatists. Maddow is especially bad. Warmonger too.
But yeah the tweet by Trump is one of his most bizarre and will surely be proven false.
I’m a bit of a cock irl to be fairc69 wrote:You have come across as a bit of a cock tbh.zt1903 wrote:The keyboard warriors are out in force today
Trump 'angry baby' blimp gets green light to fly over London during president's visit
The six-metre balloon depicting Mr Trump as a nappy-clad orange baby will take flight from Parliament Square Gardens on 13 July.
Fundamentally describing its application in decisions you don’t like as “weaponising” the first amendment is troubling rhetoric from the press! It has been no more weaponised as when the other side of the political spectrum successfully used it to allow flag burning.RuggaBugga wrote:Oh please Bucky swiller and smasher of real men...zt1903 wrote:The keyboard warriors are out in force today
Please elaborate, in your own words, on how the NY Times have come out against the first amendment again?
It's the old free speech for me but not for thee idea and lefties are stepping away from the free speech principle in their droves. Even the ACLU has changed from a principled approach to one based on moral judgement instead.zt1903 wrote:Fundamentally describing its application in decisions you don’t like as “weaponising” the first amendment is troubling rhetoric from the press! It has been no more weaponised as when the other side of the political spectrum successfully used it to allow flag burning.RuggaBugga wrote:Oh please Bucky swiller and smasher of real men...zt1903 wrote:The keyboard warriors are out in force today
Please elaborate, in your own words, on how the NY Times have come out against the first amendment again?
The potential slippery slope in the NYT coverage is the implication is that if free speech allows positions you don’t like then the problem is with free speech.
This article covers it more articulately than I could.
https://quillette.com/2018/07/04/the-ne ... ee-speech/
What the hell is going on here? it's like Carlson is a robot and they've activated his smile and laugh programme.Seneca of the Night wrote:This is pretty amazing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myozsiCo8BM
This guy is actually a Harvard law lecturer. Is he like Milo's eviler left-wing twin?
The guy took petty corruption to a whole new level. Bit of a rock star tbf.Saint wrote:The weight of ethics violations finally does for Pruitt https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44733072
They now need to follow on & charge the prick with some of the dozens of corrupt actions he's carried out in his time in office.Saint wrote:The weight of ethics violations finally does for Pruitt https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44733072
He's being replaced by a former coal industry lobbyist. So you're merely trading one scumbag for another.Saint wrote:The weight of ethics violations finally does for Pruitt https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44733072
I know - that swamp is only moving in one directionConservative Eddie wrote:He's being replaced by a former coal industry lobbyist. So you're merely trading one scumbag for another.Saint wrote:The weight of ethics violations finally does for Pruitt https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44733072
As a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Donald Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country?
The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have since left the administration. This account of the previously undisclosed conversation comes from a senior administration official familiar with what was said.
In an exchange that lasted around five minutes, McMaster and others took turns explaining to Trump how military action could backfire and risk losing hard-won support among Latin American governments to punish President Nicolas Maduro for taking Venezuela down the path of dictatorship, according to the official. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.
But Trump pushed back. Although he gave no indication he was about to order up military plans, he pointed to what he considered past cases of successful gunboat diplomacy in the region, according to the official, like the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.
The idea, despite his aides’ best attempts to shoot it down, would nonetheless persist in the president’s head.
The next day, Aug. 11, Trump alarmed friends and foes alike with talk of a “military option” to remove Maduro from power. The public remarks were initially dismissed in U.S. policy circles as the sort of martial bluster people have come to expect from the reality TV star turned commander in chief.
But shortly afterward, he raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to the U.S. official. Two high-ranking Colombian officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing Trump confirmed the report.
Then in September, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump discussed it again, this time at greater length, in a private dinner with leaders from four Latin American allies that included Santos, the same three people said and Politico reported in February.
The U.S. official said Trump was specifically briefed not to raise the issue and told it wouldn’t play well, but the first thing the president said at the dinner was, “My staff told me not to say this.”
It was Tillerson who called him a "Fucking Moron" wasn't it ?Rinkals wrote:It's been said before, but it bears repeating. Trump is a f ucking idiot.
https://www.apnews.com/a3309c4990ac4581834d4a654f7746ef
As a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Donald Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country?
The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have since left the administration. This account of the previously undisclosed conversation comes from a senior administration official familiar with what was said.
In an exchange that lasted around five minutes, McMaster and others took turns explaining to Trump how military action could backfire and risk losing hard-won support among Latin American governments to punish President Nicolas Maduro for taking Venezuela down the path of dictatorship, according to the official. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.
But Trump pushed back. Although he gave no indication he was about to order up military plans, he pointed to what he considered past cases of successful gunboat diplomacy in the region, according to the official, like the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.
The idea, despite his aides’ best attempts to shoot it down, would nonetheless persist in the president’s head.
The next day, Aug. 11, Trump alarmed friends and foes alike with talk of a “military option” to remove Maduro from power. The public remarks were initially dismissed in U.S. policy circles as the sort of martial bluster people have come to expect from the reality TV star turned commander in chief.
But shortly afterward, he raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to the U.S. official. Two high-ranking Colombian officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing Trump confirmed the report.
Then in September, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump discussed it again, this time at greater length, in a private dinner with leaders from four Latin American allies that included Santos, the same three people said and Politico reported in February.
The U.S. official said Trump was specifically briefed not to raise the issue and told it wouldn’t play well, but the first thing the president said at the dinner was, “My staff told me not to say this.”
I think your tense is wrong thereSeneca of the Night wrote:This thread is reaching critical angry Irish lefty overload.
Warner has a lot to answer for.Seneca of the Night wrote:Could this be America's Archduke Ferdinand moment?
https://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/ ... -again-hat
Who would have guessed? I'm thinking a controlling, unpleasant bully.zt1903 wrote:I’m a bit of a cock irl to be fairc69 wrote:You have come across as a bit of a cock tbh.zt1903 wrote:The keyboard warriors are out in force today
I'm afraid I won't bother with some hypothetical abstraction, but anyone who doesn't think he's a f ucking moron has to be similarly afflicted.Kiwias wrote:What would Hunter S. Thompson make of Trump?
An article in The Nation attempts to answer this question.
https://www.thenation.com/article/this- ... -thompson/
It actually talks more about his supporters and the mind frame, based on his book about the Hells Angels. It's not a bad read.Rinkals wrote:I'm afraid I won't bother with some hypothetical abstraction, but anyone who doesn't think he's a f ucking moron has to be similarly afflicted.Kiwias wrote:What would Hunter S. Thompson make of Trump?
An article in The Nation attempts to answer this question.
https://www.thenation.com/article/this- ... -thompson/
Some good insights, yeah.Kiwias wrote:It actually talks more about his supporters and the mind frame, based on his book about the Hells Angels. It's not a bad read.Rinkals wrote:I'm afraid I won't bother with some hypothetical abstraction, but anyone who doesn't think he's a f ucking moron has to be similarly afflicted.Kiwias wrote:What would Hunter S. Thompson make of Trump?
An article in The Nation attempts to answer this question.
https://www.thenation.com/article/this- ... -thompson/
There was a lengthy Atlantic article (I think) a few months ago that saw the writer interviewing Trump supporters and finding out whether they were still supporting him when nothing he was doing was benefitting them directly.While many commentators say Trump will have to bring back jobs or vibrancy to places like the Rust Belt if he wants to continue to have the support of people who voted for him, Thompson’s account suggests otherwise. Many if not most Trump supporters long ago gave up on the idea that any politician, even someone like Trump, can change the direction the wind is blowing. Even if he fails to bring back the jobs, Trump can maintain loyalty in another way: As long as he continues to offend and irritate elites, and as long as he refuses to play by certain rules of decorum—heaven forfend, the president-elect says ill-conceived things on Twitter!—Trump will still command loyalty. It’s the ethic, not the policy, that matters most.
Give that that are unlikely to get a better deal under anyone else, why not. And they're certainly getting their money's worth of liberal angst and hysteria.4071 wrote:Some good insights, yeah.Kiwias wrote:It actually talks more about his supporters and the mind frame, based on his book about the Hells Angels. It's not a bad read.Rinkals wrote:I'm afraid I won't bother with some hypothetical abstraction, but anyone who doesn't think he's a f ucking moron has to be similarly afflicted.Kiwias wrote:What would Hunter S. Thompson make of Trump?
An article in The Nation attempts to answer this question.
https://www.thenation.com/article/this- ... -thompson/
I mean, there's already been plenty of evidence of this:There was a lengthy Atlantic article (I think) a few months ago that saw the writer interviewing Trump supporters and finding out whether they were still supporting him when nothing he was doing was benefitting them directly.While many commentators say Trump will have to bring back jobs or vibrancy to places like the Rust Belt if he wants to continue to have the support of people who voted for him, Thompson’s account suggests otherwise. Many if not most Trump supporters long ago gave up on the idea that any politician, even someone like Trump, can change the direction the wind is blowing. Even if he fails to bring back the jobs, Trump can maintain loyalty in another way: As long as he continues to offend and irritate elites, and as long as he refuses to play by certain rules of decorum—heaven forfend, the president-elect says ill-conceived things on Twitter!—Trump will still command loyalty. It’s the ethic, not the policy, that matters most.
They were generally unswerving in their loyalty. If they gave reasons for their support, when presented with facts that undermined those reasons then they would simply move to another reason, and then another.
The journalist appeared baffled and desperate, and I think he ended up putting it down to racism. Which may be true in some cases, but doesn't really ring true as an explanation for the phenomenon. The article above seems closer to the truth - "It’s the ethic, not the policy, that matters most."
Trump's attitude is one they support, rather than Trump's policies. He could switch policy direction 180 degrees, and as long as he expressed his new policy direction as a middle finger to the Liberals and the Elites, his supporters would go with it.
The tax cut was a perfect example of that. You've got to give the guy credit -- he passed a massive tax cut for the rich and the poorer voters in his support base backed him all the way.4071 wrote:
Some good insights, yeah.
I mean, there's already been plenty of evidence of this:There was a lengthy Atlantic article (I think) a few months ago that saw the writer interviewing Trump supporters and finding out whether they were still supporting him when nothing he was doing was benefitting them directly.While many commentators say Trump will have to bring back jobs or vibrancy to places like the Rust Belt if he wants to continue to have the support of people who voted for him, Thompson’s account suggests otherwise. Many if not most Trump supporters long ago gave up on the idea that any politician, even someone like Trump, can change the direction the wind is blowing. Even if he fails to bring back the jobs, Trump can maintain loyalty in another way: As long as he continues to offend and irritate elites, and as long as he refuses to play by certain rules of decorum—heaven forfend, the president-elect says ill-conceived things on Twitter!—Trump will still command loyalty. It’s the ethic, not the policy, that matters most.
They were generally unswerving in their loyalty. If they gave reasons for their support, when presented with facts that undermined those reasons then they would simply move to another reason, and then another.
The journalist appeared baffled and desperate, and I think he ended up putting it down to racism. Which may be true in some cases, but doesn't really ring true as an explanation for the phenomenon. The article above seems closer to the truth - "It’s the ethic, not the policy, that matters most."
Trump's attitude is one they support, rather than Trump's policies. He could switch policy direction 180 degrees, and as long as he expressed his new policy direction as a middle finger to the Liberals and the Elites, his supporters would go with it.
Trolling a dictator.zt1903 wrote:So reading this morning that Trump gifted Kim a signed Elton John cd
Rocket maaaan burning up his fuse up here alone.
TBF, Kim started it with his giant envelope.Kiwias wrote:Trolling a dictator.zt1903 wrote:So reading this morning that Trump gifted Kim a signed Elton John cd
Rocket maaaan burning up his fuse up here alone.
This is not going to end well.
For Elton, like in Kingsmen 2.Kiwias wrote:Trolling a dictator.zt1903 wrote:So reading this morning that Trump gifted Kim a signed Elton John cd
Rocket maaaan burning up his fuse up here alone.
This is not going to end well.
It's only going to escalate - next Kim sends Trump a signed copy of the art of the deal, Trump sends back a copy of Team America, Kim sends Trump the complete works of Stormy Daniels, Trump sends Kim the severed head of Dennis Rodman, bing, bing, bing...nuclear war...4071 wrote:TBF, Kim started it with his giant envelope.Kiwias wrote:Trolling a dictator.zt1903 wrote:So reading this morning that Trump gifted Kim a signed Elton John cd
Rocket maaaan burning up his fuse up here alone.
This is not going to end well.
Except they don't really make that implication at all and the article you quote is plain misrepresentation.zt1903 wrote:Fundamentally describing its application in decisions you don’t like as “weaponising” the first amendment is troubling rhetoric from the press! It has been no more weaponised as when the other side of the political spectrum successfully used it to allow flag burning.RuggaBugga wrote:Oh please Bucky swiller and smasher of real men...zt1903 wrote:The keyboard warriors are out in force today
Please elaborate, in your own words, on how the NY Times have come out against the first amendment again?
The potential slippery slope in the NYT coverage is the implication is that if free speech allows positions you don’t like then the problem is with free speech.
This article covers it more articulately than I could.
https://quillette.com/2018/07/04/the-ne ... ee-speech/
If you say soRuggaBugga wrote:Except they don't really make that implication at all and the article you quote is plain misrepresentation.zt1903 wrote:Fundamentally describing its application in decisions you don’t like as “weaponising” the first amendment is troubling rhetoric from the press! It has been no more weaponised as when the other side of the political spectrum successfully used it to allow flag burning.RuggaBugga wrote:Oh please Bucky swiller and smasher of real men...zt1903 wrote:The keyboard warriors are out in force today
Please elaborate, in your own words, on how the NY Times have come out against the first amendment again?
The potential slippery slope in the NYT coverage is the implication is that if free speech allows positions you don’t like then the problem is with free speech.
This article covers it more articulately than I could.
https://quillette.com/2018/07/04/the-ne ... ee-speech/
I do agree that there are too many hysterical twats on the left trying to shut down views that run contrary to their own though. What is going on on university campuses over there is completely insane.
Btw it's patently obvious you read the quilette article prior to reading the NYT...
Oh I dozt1903 wrote:If you say soRuggaBugga wrote:Except they don't really make that implication at all and the article you quote is plain misrepresentation.zt1903 wrote:Fundamentally describing its application in decisions you don’t like as “weaponising” the first amendment is troubling rhetoric from the press! It has been no more weaponised as when the other side of the political spectrum successfully used it to allow flag burning.RuggaBugga wrote:Oh please Bucky swiller and smasher of real men...zt1903 wrote:The keyboard warriors are out in force today
Please elaborate, in your own words, on how the NY Times have come out against the first amendment again?
The potential slippery slope in the NYT coverage is the implication is that if free speech allows positions you don’t like then the problem is with free speech.
This article covers it more articulately than I could.
https://quillette.com/2018/07/04/the-ne ... ee-speech/
I do agree that there are too many hysterical twats on the left trying to shut down views that run contrary to their own though. What is going on on university campuses over there is completely insane.
Btw it's patently obvious you read the quilette article prior to reading the NYT...
It's just childish.penguin wrote:It's only going to escalate - next Kim sends Trump a signed copy of the art of the deal, Trump sends back a copy of Team America, Kim sends Trump the complete works of Stormy Daniels, Trump sends Kim the severed head of Dennis Rodman, bing, bing, bing...nuclear war...4071 wrote:TBF, Kim started it with his giant envelope.Kiwias wrote:Trolling a dictator.zt1903 wrote:So reading this morning that Trump gifted Kim a signed Elton John cd
Rocket maaaan burning up his fuse up here alone.
This is not going to end well.
It is. Who knows - perhaps Kim and Trump got on so well that he can joke about that sort of thing...but I doubt it.Rinkals wrote:It's just childish.penguin wrote:It's only going to escalate - next Kim sends Trump a signed copy of the art of the deal, Trump sends back a copy of Team America, Kim sends Trump the complete works of Stormy Daniels, Trump sends Kim the severed head of Dennis Rodman, bing, bing, bing...nuclear war...4071 wrote:TBF, Kim started it with his giant envelope.Kiwias wrote:Trolling a dictator.zt1903 wrote:So reading this morning that Trump gifted Kim a signed Elton John cd
Rocket maaaan burning up his fuse up here alone.
This is not going to end well.
Probably why ZT (and the rest of Trump's core supporters) like it so much.
Calling I M JollyRinkals wrote:It's just childish.penguin wrote:It's only going to escalate - next Kim sends Trump a signed copy of the art of the deal, Trump sends back a copy of Team America, Kim sends Trump the complete works of Stormy Daniels, Trump sends Kim the severed head of Dennis Rodman, bing, bing, bing...nuclear war...4071 wrote:TBF, Kim started it with his giant envelope.Kiwias wrote:Trolling a dictator.zt1903 wrote:So reading this morning that Trump gifted Kim a signed Elton John cd
Rocket maaaan burning up his fuse up here alone.
This is not going to end well.
Probably why ZT (and the rest of Trump's core supporters) like it so much.
List too long to paste, you’ll have to read the articleMainstream media errors in the Trump era: Your catalogue of the media's bias-fueled failure-fest in 2017
The press' credibility problem took a turn for the worse this year.
Chalk it up to bias, sloppiness, or sheer panic in response to the election of Donald Trump, but the bottom line for 2017 is that there was a shocking decline in the quality and reliability of political journalism.
Instead of adjusting adeptly to Trump's easy relationship with the truth and his tendency to abuse members of the news media, a significant number of political journalists and commentators tripped over themselves to repeat every bit of gossip, thinly sourced claim and half-cocked rumor.
These stories fell short of the most basic function of political journalism in that they failed to provide readers with a clear and indisputably accurate picture of what is really going on at the White House and Congress. These botched reports also further diminished the public's already dwindling trust in the press.
This isn't to say all coverage of the Trump administration was trash. Rather, it's to say an unusually large number of 2017 stories, tweets and headlines turned out either to be overhyped, inconclusive, misleading, half-true, or flat-out false.
Starting in order of most recent, here is our catalogue of this year's shoddiest political reporting beginning Jan. 20, 2017:
A fair number of those appear to be cases of the MSM either favouring Trump, or at least giving him the benefit of the doubt, only for it to be proved falsezt1903 wrote:This thread's been way too quiet this weekend.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/main ... st-in-2017
List too long to paste, you’ll have to read the articleMainstream media errors in the Trump era: Your catalogue of the media's bias-fueled failure-fest in 2017
The press' credibility problem took a turn for the worse this year.
Chalk it up to bias, sloppiness, or sheer panic in response to the election of Donald Trump, but the bottom line for 2017 is that there was a shocking decline in the quality and reliability of political journalism.
Instead of adjusting adeptly to Trump's easy relationship with the truth and his tendency to abuse members of the news media, a significant number of political journalists and commentators tripped over themselves to repeat every bit of gossip, thinly sourced claim and half-cocked rumor.
These stories fell short of the most basic function of political journalism in that they failed to provide readers with a clear and indisputably accurate picture of what is really going on at the White House and Congress. These botched reports also further diminished the public's already dwindling trust in the press.
This isn't to say all coverage of the Trump administration was trash. Rather, it's to say an unusually large number of 2017 stories, tweets and headlines turned out either to be overhyped, inconclusive, misleading, half-true, or flat-out false.
Starting in order of most recent, here is our catalogue of this year's shoddiest political reporting beginning Jan. 20, 2017:
is she the one in that catholic cult ?zt1903 wrote:Also SCOTUS nominee due tomorrow.
I’m going to predict that he’ll go with Amy Coney Barrett. I have no particular opinion on the nominees but it seems that she is the best one for the political theatre of it, works on a number of levels.
Yep, and also the bookies favourite. ZT is going out on a limb with this predictionAkkerman wrote:is she the one in that catholic cult ?zt1903 wrote:Also SCOTUS nominee due tomorrow.
I’m going to predict that he’ll go with Amy Coney Barrett. I have no particular opinion on the nominees but it seems that she is the best one for the political theatre of it, works on a number of levels.
Orrin Hatch has also been using a female pronoun when writing about the upcoming nomination.Saint wrote:Yep, and also the bookies favourite. ZT is going out on a limb with this predictionAkkerman wrote:is she the one in that catholic cult ?zt1903 wrote:Also SCOTUS nominee due tomorrow.
I’m going to predict that he’ll go with Amy Coney Barrett. I have no particular opinion on the nominees but it seems that she is the best one for the political theatre of it, works on a number of levels.
”But no matter the nominee’s background or credentials, progressives will do everything they can to paint her as a closet partisan, if not an outright extremist”
I like it. People have a very poor record backing favourites on this thread. Good luck to you.zt1903 wrote:Also SCOTUS nominee due tomorrow.
I’m going to predict that he’ll go with Amy Coney Barrett. I have no particular opinion on the nominees but it seems that she is the best one for the political theatre of it, works on a number of levels.