Donald I, emperor of the world.
- Thread starter C R
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Pinno718
Well-Known Member
MAGA is 'self cannibalizing'
Do not underestimate the scale of the MAGA ground swell.
"If he lied about x, then what else did he lie about...?"
Paul Rogan has turned, Bannon has turned, 7 Republicans have turned. Get a feel for it here:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86tcoDjJWbk
This is where I'm uncertain as they've already swallowed so many lies and believed complete twaddle spouted by Trump & MAGA so why would they suddenly start caring about truth? or even develop a desire for truth? or even consider questioning the ludicrous fallacies they've happily believed for years.
To suddenly start questioning lies would mean them accepting they've been blindly believing lies for years and many people don't like recognising they've fallen sucker to obvious fraud.
Of course if they do then because they'll also be admitting to years of complete stupidity and naivety they'll probably turn in a big and strong way trying to blame their being suckers of other people (like Trump).
Ian
Pinno718
Well-Known Member
Senator Ron Wyden makes the point in congress;
"If there are over 4000 wire transfers [of monies totalling $1.1bn] ...then there are over 4000 lines of investigation, particularly when those wire transfers were related directly to Epstein who was a convicted sex trafficker".
The FBI and the DOJ cannot possibly say that there is 'nothing to see here'.
The sheer volume of stuff held on Epstein is enormous.
Michael Woolf said that he saw Polaroid pictures of Trump around Epstein's pool cavorting with young topless women and that Epstein showed him this collection of photo's. One photo is of two topless women pointing at a stain in Trumps crotch area laughing.
Where are those photo's now?
I do not think for a moment that Woolf is fabricating his recollection.
"If there are over 4000 wire transfers [of monies totalling $1.1bn] ...then there are over 4000 lines of investigation, particularly when those wire transfers were related directly to Epstein who was a convicted sex trafficker".
The FBI and the DOJ cannot possibly say that there is 'nothing to see here'.
The sheer volume of stuff held on Epstein is enormous.
Michael Woolf said that he saw Polaroid pictures of Trump around Epstein's pool cavorting with young topless women and that Epstein showed him this collection of photo's. One photo is of two topless women pointing at a stain in Trumps crotch area laughing.
Where are those photo's now?
I do not think for a moment that Woolf is fabricating his recollection.
Pinno718
Well-Known Member
You did not watch the MSNBC clip I posted above.
secretsqirrel
Regular
Pinno718
Well-Known Member
The Donkeys, written by former Tory MP Alan Clark, a very well written book. The origin of the 'Led by Donkeys;.
Ludendorff said to Hindenburg "These British, they fight like lions:
Hindenburg replied "Yes but they are lead by Donkeys"
Clark really brings home the utter incompetence of the British Generals and how callous they were.
Lord French said of almost 700 men who died bar a handful when they went 'over the top':
"I am so proud of our men - they fought so gallantly".
Worth a read, I thoroughly recommend it.
briantrumpet
Veteran
I'm more likely to if it's dogs doing cute or clever things than people reading out words that I could have read myself in a tenth of the time.
The other better thing about reading words is something for something challenging or questionable you can think before continuing or re-read or check elsewhere. Go at your pace relevant for the content and you knowledge, etc. (plus don't have to listen to some silly channel into video, "thanks to our sponsors", "do subscribe", "do enter your thoughts in the comments below", etc.)
Ian
Pinno718
Well-Known Member
@briantrumpet
@Psamathe
Very odd sentiments gentleman. Very odd. From two articulate people, one of whom I know pretty well. I find it odd that you won't view a 10 minute piece by an accredited news organisation who are as good as any of the usual sources.
MSNBC News is a national news broadcaster with millions of viewers in the same way ITV posts YT videos. Would you watch ITV/BBC/Chanell 4 news on the television but not the same news clips on YT?! The clip above is not some cobbled piece from some random YT political commentator.
Woe to them who contradict your POV or present an alternative perspective through a video clip. They will find themselves facing a brick wall. There is hypocricy in that. I find this strange, myopic and arrogant.
'Ooooh' says the William McGonagall's 'oooo, that's not proper media, why should I bother my @rse? I'm too clever for Youtube, I would rather see it in writing or from a 'main stream source' !?
I think you should both hire a PA, he/she can take notes and give you a precis of the video content and then perhaps we could resume the conversation?
"thanks to our sponsors", "do subscribe"...
You don't get that on MSNBC news BTW Psamathe.
All the main stream media outlets on YT have subscribe and like and comment icons. No one is asking you to subscribe or like or comment from main stream media but still you both refuse to watch anything on YT bar the inane?
On YT, there is high quality political comment and analysis. You have to sift through the garbage but you will not get Forbes Breaking News in UK written media for example. Forbes Breaking News has live coverage and reams of detailed congress nominations, questioning, accountability hearings, senate hearings etc etc. Therein lies a window into the mechanics of US politics and Democracy most relevant to this thread and you hear very articulate language from Senators such as Ron Wyden above ^.. Padilla made a statement in congress following his arrest. He was excellent. It's all there.
The Forbes clips come with no commentary so it allows the viewer to make up their own minds. There was Kash Patel's Grilling, Hegseth, Noem, RFK jnr et al, all grilled by the senate.
The Daily Beast has some excellent political commentary too with very good contributors. All on YT.
But oh no, that's on YT. I refuse to watch YT. It's irrelevant to me. It won't give me another perspective, I have all the perspective I need. It's a type of a media source that is derelict, corrupt and commercialised...
I specially selected the following inane video for you both.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJbGaLPSVeA
@Psamathe
Very odd sentiments gentleman. Very odd. From two articulate people, one of whom I know pretty well. I find it odd that you won't view a 10 minute piece by an accredited news organisation who are as good as any of the usual sources.
MSNBC News is a national news broadcaster with millions of viewers in the same way ITV posts YT videos. Would you watch ITV/BBC/Chanell 4 news on the television but not the same news clips on YT?! The clip above is not some cobbled piece from some random YT political commentator.
Woe to them who contradict your POV or present an alternative perspective through a video clip. They will find themselves facing a brick wall. There is hypocricy in that. I find this strange, myopic and arrogant.
'Ooooh' says the William McGonagall's 'oooo, that's not proper media, why should I bother my @rse? I'm too clever for Youtube, I would rather see it in writing or from a 'main stream source' !?
I think you should both hire a PA, he/she can take notes and give you a precis of the video content and then perhaps we could resume the conversation?
"thanks to our sponsors", "do subscribe"...
You don't get that on MSNBC news BTW Psamathe.
All the main stream media outlets on YT have subscribe and like and comment icons. No one is asking you to subscribe or like or comment from main stream media but still you both refuse to watch anything on YT bar the inane?
On YT, there is high quality political comment and analysis. You have to sift through the garbage but you will not get Forbes Breaking News in UK written media for example. Forbes Breaking News has live coverage and reams of detailed congress nominations, questioning, accountability hearings, senate hearings etc etc. Therein lies a window into the mechanics of US politics and Democracy most relevant to this thread and you hear very articulate language from Senators such as Ron Wyden above ^.. Padilla made a statement in congress following his arrest. He was excellent. It's all there.
The Forbes clips come with no commentary so it allows the viewer to make up their own minds. There was Kash Patel's Grilling, Hegseth, Noem, RFK jnr et al, all grilled by the senate.
The Daily Beast has some excellent political commentary too with very good contributors. All on YT.
But oh no, that's on YT. I refuse to watch YT. It's irrelevant to me. It won't give me another perspective, I have all the perspective I need. It's a type of a media source that is derelict, corrupt and commercialised...
I specially selected the following inane video for you both.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJbGaLPSVeA
Additionally you have to go through all the "prove you are a person" clicking on cars/steps/chimneys/etc. which do sometimes work. Sometimes don't because youtube want to track you, want to push ads at you none of whichI will accept and that upsets Google. I watch C4 news with none of that, fast forwarding through reports that don't interest or concern me.
So general principle is I can't be bothered with youtube.
Ian
briantrumpet
Veteran
You might have seen my general point about TV news and news commentary being pernicious, as it uses news as gory entertainment in order to keep up the viewing figures and income stream. In general, I don't need things reading out for me, or being dramatised to make me feel emotional about it. I'm happy to let all the Youtube news channels pass me by, as they generally don't add anything that I can't get from reading stuff.
briantrumpet
Veteran
Here's where YT is helpful... an interview with a Democrat who could be a potential presidential candidate. He's a deeply Christian person, so I'd not necessarily be sympathetic... but hearing an intelligent person using his faith to argue for tolerance and so on against the hijacking of religion by the 'religious' right is illuminating. The way he articulates his thoughts to someone like Rogan is a good use of video time, especially given Rogan's audience.
