Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[not-bono-ever]

.

 

[Raheem]

From what I know , the salacious acts are not that salacious and did not happen in Moscow. This alone pushes the document into Our man in Havana territory and allows us to question the veracity of everything else.

One thing is for sure , Orbis and its owners are fucked as a serious business

So you conclude the report is junk based on your personal knowledge that its contents are basically true but with errors at the level of detail. Maybe you should see if Orbis are hiring.

 

[not-bono-ever]

whatever

 

[Yossarian]

Man sure seems to have a lot of glass tables in his living room.

 

[eoin_k]

OK so, given enough criteria, its unprecedented. But I don't see that its fundamentally different to Watergate. The "firm evidence base" at the time that went public was pretty similar. It was based on anonymous sources, someone digging around trying to get people to talk to them.

It's been a while since I watched 'All the President's Men', but my recollection was that the CIA/FBI were part of the story when it first broke, rather than spinning it against Nixon. It may have ended in impeachment, but when it started Nixon was in a very different position to Trump.

 

[squirrelp]

The report exists and has been distributed. If say, I had made up the existence of such a report ( e.g. North Korea has video evidence of Trump abusing a dolphin whilst on a business trip to the country) and then fabricated an account of it's distribution (e.g. this has been seen by the pope and Angela Merkel), that would be 'fake news'. As it stands, this is the real reporting of an existing document and it's readership; you can and should question the veracity of the content, but you shouldn't dismiss it as 'fake news'.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Yes why need journalism involve getting to the truth of the matter?

I would note that the defence of ignorance generally doesn't work for those prosecuted for fencing stolen goods. But with the mainstream media 'fell of the back of a lorry' seems to do just fine especially when it comes to parroting government propaganda.

'fake news' I think works just fine actually

 

[mikey mikey]

I think we have seen the Guardian finally sink to Daily Mail depths. It doesn't make it right because the target is a twat like Trump.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well I must have hit a nerve. 14 years of forum and I have never seen such a swan song.

I see Labour Right neocon knts taking their ball away like the wimps they are here.

Fkn wimps.

If you're going to swear, swear properly, you goatcunted pissweasel.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The trolling would be more effective if you didn't come over so desperate for a response.

Possibly they're desperate for a response so that they'll be able to come? We all know that some trolls have extremely complex psycho-sexual needs.

 

[ViolentPanda]

farage, trump and le pen. Now theres an Axis of evil

Axis of fucking Weebles!

 

[ViolentPanda]

And to think the Hildebeests big fat arse in a swimsuit caused a biblical wailing and gnashing of teeth .

Fucking jokers .

That's basically scat porn . It's sick .

You love it. It gave you a boner, although not as big a boner as HRC's arse.

 

[mikey mikey]

If you're going to swear, swear properly, you goatcunted pissweasel.

I was addressing Labour Right neocon knuts. Not yo...

Oh, I see.

 

[mikey mikey]

You love it. It gave you a boner, although not as big a boner as HRC's arse.

 

[butchersapron]

You ever think you might be more suited to twitter?

 

[mikey mikey]

You ever thought Violent Panda might be more suited to xhamster?

 

[not-bono-ever]

You have added zero to this thread. Why are you doing this ?

 

[butchersapron]

Fantastic interview of Nancy Fraser by Doug Henwood on the pitfalls of 'progressive neoliberalism' in the context of the US election.

It's been really interesting to see Fraser move from her more recognition inflected position of the 80s and 90s - a sort of critical identity politics but with a collective dimension - to a position much more sceptical of identity/recognition, and totally rejecting it minus redistribution. Her updating of Polanyi's double movement is bang on and politically important (maybe not so much in longer term analysis) and explains exactly why i argued on the 21st century fascism thread that the modern far-right is and is only going to be protective - not on a universal level of course, but it's not and isn't going to be right-wing free trade libertarian nonsense, and never really was. Which is what made that intervention on the modern far-right from that american last week so off target.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I was addressing Labour Right neocon knuts. Not yo...

Oh, I see.

Not Labour, not rightwing, not a neocon. Am a cunt.

1 out of 4. A very poor showing on your part.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You have added zero to this thread. Why are you doing this ?

Teachers have lots of spare time.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What are you trying to say? Come on, spit it out!

 

[Idris2002]

And here's Sarah Kendzior using a clipping from the newsletter Executive Intelligence Review, published by the bizarre conspiraloon cult around Lyndon LaRouche - and she's using it to imply that Trump/Russia links go back to Gorby's time.

Apart from the fact that LaRouche is a DEMENTED FUCKING NUTCASE, the stuff about the Soviets wanting trump to build a hotel in Moscow sounds like the sort of bullshit he likes to spread himself to build up and sustain TrumpHype. Like the story that Prince Charles was going to buy a flat in a Trump development, for example.

If Kendzior is resorting to using this sort of stuff, something has gone desperately wrong. . .

 

[mikey mikey]

You have added zero to this thread. Why are you doing this ?

Well I received five likes on this thread to add to my modest collection, so not everybody here agrees with you.
Are you trying to get me thrown off the thread?

What are you trying to say? Come on, spit it out!

You're a sad panda?

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Teachers have lots of spare time.

I wish that was true

 

[not-bono-ever]

It was rhetorical.

 

[teqniq]

Chinese state media tells Trump's team to 'prepare for military clash'

The US should "prepare for a military clash", a state run Chinese tabloid newspaper has warned.

Less than 24 hours after US Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson appeared to call for a blockade of South China Sea islands, a strongly-worded English editorial in the Global Times accused the former Exxon Mobil chief executive of "rabble-rousing".

He "had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories", the paper, which is known for writing hawkish editorials, said. However, despite being state run, it does not necessarily reflect government policy....

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well I received five likes on this thread to add to my modest collection, so not everybody here agrees with you.
Are you trying to get me thrown off the thread?

You're a sad panda?

Better a sad panda than a goatcunted pissweasel, you goatcunted pissweasel.

 

[mikey mikey]

It was rhetorical.

Perhaps your question was. But your first statment was not a question at all.

You have added zero to this thread

It was meant to be undermining. Now you know that doesn't work.

 

[mikey mikey]

Chinese state media tells Trump's team to 'prepare for military clash'

Well that Indie article is a little bit alarmist to say the list.

The Chinese Global Times article in question has the headline

Is Tillerson’s bluster just a bluff for Senate?

Not quite the Kruschev table thumping tone you may have been led to believe.

The quotes are cherry-picked to create a sensational narrative.

If you read the brief article, you may get more sleep tonight.

Is Tillerson’s bluster just a bluff for Senate? - Global Times

 

[Pickman's model]

I think we have seen the Guardian finally sink to Daily Mail depths. It doesn't make it right because the target is a twat like Trump.

i think you should read the guardian going down the pan thread, where you will find that the guardian descended to mailesque depths quite some time ago.

 

[mikey mikey]

I think you are probably right and that thread is hilarious tbh.