RugbyRebels

Melanie - the most bullied woman in the world - you mean?

She sold her soul years ago. Donald could literally smash the back doors off her mum and she'd no doubt find solace with a shopping spree.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

She probably has had her waz botoxed to dull the pain of any negotiated re entry by Donnel.


That is one hollow fuck trophy. Man.

Which Tyler wrote:

morepork wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Screen Shot 2018-10-15 at 11.02.50 PM.png

Much closer to a true life

More 'winning' for Trump...

A judge dismissed Stormy Daniel's defamation case against Trump citing the First Amendment which has protected Trump by allowing him to deny accusations made against him, at the same time as making allegations in return.

What a system.

In other news, the Cherokee Nation issued a statement criticising Elizabeth Warren for using a DNA test to 'prove' that she has Cherokee heritage. Trump has made it a personal mission to discredit Warren's claims about her heritage and has often called her 'Pocahontas'. Trump has somehow used Cherokee Nation's criticism of Warren using a DNA test as proof that she is a fraud...even though the test itself backed up her claims, although they only showed a small link.

The master of fake news at work.

The Warren story goes back quite a few years though as she was listed as a racial minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Law Teachers and also as a 'woman of colour' at Harvard. Some argued that it was done so she could gain career advantages through being listed as a minority, which she has denied.

Trump, however, remains a cunt with 100% DNA proof to back that up.

It was unwise of her to engage the moron like that. No matter Harvard records show no attempt to enroll as a minority on Warren's part. Social meja has now taken over. It's impossible to get away from it. Note the spectacular lack of awareness of Trump tweeting "Thank you to the Cherokee Nation for revealing that Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas, is a complete and total Fraud!" Condesceding racial slur. Nice work.

Twitter really is a fucking cancer.

morepork wrote:It was unwise of her to engage the moron like that. No matter Harvard records show no attempt to enroll as a minority on Warren's part. Social meja has now taken over. It's impossible to get away from it. Note the spectacular lack of awareness of Trump tweeting "Thank you to the Cherokee Nation for revealing that Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas, is a complete and total Fraud!" Condesceding racial slur. Nice work.

Twitter really is a fucking cancer.

I wrote a fucking massive response to you on here a while back about having become a twitter-obsessed moron over the last year and how it's destroying my brain but I can't stop looking at it, then the train went into a tunnel as I hit post and it disappeared. I'm sure it saved everyone from reading a whole load of pointless dribble, but I do agree. Nuance has no place in social media but its many people's only news source now.

Mikey Brown wrote:

morepork wrote:It was unwise of her to engage the moron like that. No matter Harvard records show no attempt to enroll as a minority on Warren's part. Social meja has now taken over. It's impossible to get away from it. Note the spectacular lack of awareness of Trump tweeting "Thank you to the Cherokee Nation for revealing that Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas, is a complete and total Fraud!" Condesceding racial slur. Nice work.

Twitter really is a fucking cancer.

I wrote a fucking massive response to you on here a while back about having become a twitter-obsessed moron over the last year and how it's destroying my brain but I can't stop looking at it, then the train went into a tunnel as I hit post and it disappeared. I'm sure it saved everyone from reading a whole load of pointless dribble, but I do agree. Nuance has no place in social media but its many people's only news source now.

Yep. I keep saying, history will not look kindly on social media. Much as I hate to admit it, I had to wean myself off Facebook. Once I realised that the longer you stay off the more emails they send you it turned in to a fun game. As you’ll be desperate to know, eight emails in one day was the record.

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

morepork wrote:It was unwise of her to engage the moron like that. No matter Harvard records show no attempt to enroll as a minority on Warren's part. Social meja has now taken over. It's impossible to get away from it. Note the spectacular lack of awareness of Trump tweeting "Thank you to the Cherokee Nation for revealing that Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas, is a complete and total Fraud!" Condesceding racial slur. Nice work.

Twitter really is a fucking cancer.

I wrote a fucking massive response to you on here a while back about having become a twitter-obsessed moron over the last year and how it's destroying my brain but I can't stop looking at it, then the train went into a tunnel as I hit post and it disappeared. I'm sure it saved everyone from reading a whole load of pointless dribble, but I do agree. Nuance has no place in social media but its many people's only news source now.

Yep. I keep saying, history will not look kindly on social media. Much as I hate to admit it, I had to wean myself off Facebook. Once I realised that the longer you stay off the more emails they send you it turned in to a fun game. As you’ll be desperate to know, eight emails in one day was the record.

Now, if only you could ditch the PORN.

morepork wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
I wrote a fucking massive response to you on here a while back about having become a twitter-obsessed moron over the last year and how it's destroying my brain but I can't stop looking at it, then the train went into a tunnel as I hit post and it disappeared. I'm sure it saved everyone from reading a whole load of pointless dribble, but I do agree. Nuance has no place in social media but its many people's only news source now.

Yep. I keep saying, history will not look kindly on social media. Much as I hate to admit it, I had to wean myself off Facebook. Once I realised that the longer you stay off the more emails they send you it turned in to a fun game. As you’ll be desperate to know, eight emails in one day was the record.

Now, if only you could ditch the PORN.

Struggling to see how it’s possible to turn that into a fun game.

Facebook and Twitter are largely pointless. I used to work in a company which employed a social media manager. She used to report monthly on the number of hits and likes, but there was never any substantial evidence that such activity improved the business or even paid her wages.

I use LinkedIn for business, but I avoid Facebook . I don’t care what someone has had for lunch, and if you take those sites as a source of news then have a word with yourself.

So many people do though mate.

morepork wrote:So many people do though mate.

Frightening. It’s like listening to the day gobshyte at the bar and taking him seriously.

mmmmmm.....
I'm going to have to give that one a hard no.

Mikey Brown wrote:I wrote a fucking massive response to you on here a while back about having become a twitter-obsessed moron over the last year and how it's destroying my brain but I can't stop looking at it, then the train went into a tunnel as I hit post and it disappeared. I'm sure it saved everyone from reading a whole load of pointless dribble, but I do agree. Nuance has no place in social media but its many people's only news source now.

Hit the nail on the head there Mikey.

Its even got to the point where Tweets make the news in lieu of being able to get a direct quote from someone. When a celebrity passes away, or something happens in the entertainment world, news agencies add Tweets to the story and that kind of mentality is seeping into political news as well.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Twitter is perfect for Trump and tbh, I don't think he's that clever to work that out. He is just being a big headed, egocentric, gobby bigot having his say and not having to deal directly with opposing views and facts.

morepork wrote:mmmmmm.....

Screen Shot 2018-10-17 at 3.35.33 PM.png

I'm going to have to give that one a hard no.

What are the Dems doing to win seats, or are they counting on Trump losing votes for the GOP?

It didn't work last time.

I'd love to see someone show some initiative.

Beto seems a good candidate and it would be great to see him beating Cruz in Texas, but that's a big ask.

Not sure if anyone else has seen this clip...ignore the music, the message and common sense approach is what counts:


I'm not sure if the question and response was prepared, but well done that man!

WaspInWales wrote:

morepork wrote:mmmmmm.....

Screen Shot 2018-10-17 at 3.35.33 PM.png

I'm going to have to give that one a hard no.

What are the Dems doing to win seats, or are they counting on Trump losing votes for the GOP?

It didn't work last time.

I'd love to see someone show some initiative.

Beto seems a good candidate and it would be great to see him beating Cruz in Texas, but that's a big ask.

Not sure if anyone else has seen this clip...ignore the music, the message and common sense approach is what counts:


I'm not sure if the question and response was prepared, but well done that man!

I'm going to guess that it wasn't a complete set-up, because he spent a good 20 seconds at the beginning reiterating the question and ambling about as he desperately tried to get his thoughts in order to make his answer right and unimpeachable. Very good speaking though - if he beats Cruz, you'd have to think he'll be destined for higher honours further down the line.

Puja

FFS. Geriatric Mutant Ninja Turtle Mitch McConnell is making a hard play for social security and medicaid on the basis of "entitlements" being responsible for a 1.6 trillion deficit increase, after the corporate tax rate was slashed, and these fuckheads agonise over a few brothers not standing for the National Dirge?

We are fucked.

Sandydragon wrote:I don’t care what someone has had for lunch, and if you take those sites as a source of news then have a word with yourself.

I'm not sure exactly what you're picturing here, but I'm talking about it being a far quicker and more direct source of lots of different news outlets. You can follow the journalists and publications directly. It often arrives ages before anything appears on the BBC (for example) and it's quite helpful to see the skew/bias when comparing the same story coming from different angles.

The problem is there being no clear line between that and the ramblings of somebody who's either very (twitter) famous or simply said something so insane or outrageous that it's spreads like wildfire.

A lot of legit news is now just as much about regurgitating tweets as it is the other way round. It's created this odd situation where an actual fact or incisive bit of reporting might be considered total bollocks by many (I get the sense you are one) purely because it's a screenshot with a blue box around it. Equally you can just take the loudest, most obnoxious, ill-informed voice from the opposing side and use that to represent the entirety of people that disagree with you (or your news station) to get everyone all fired up and retarded.

So I definitely think it has a lot to offer, but people are too fucking stupid and impressionable to not get wrapped up in the vortex of hyperbole and misinformation.

Sorry. Yeah, Trump. What a fucking arsehole.

Haven't seen much of Coco recently?

Mikey Brown wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I don’t care what someone has had for lunch, and if you take those sites as a source of news then have a word with yourself.

I'm not sure exactly what you're picturing here, but I'm talking about it being a far quicker and more direct source of lots of different news outlets. You can follow the journalists and publications directly. It often arrives ages before anything appears on the BBC (for example) and it's quite helpful to see the skew/bias when comparing the same story coming from different angles.

The problem is there being no clear line between that and the ramblings of somebody who's either very (twitter) famous or simply said something so insane or outrageous that it's spreads like wildfire.

A lot of legit news is now just as much about regurgitating tweets as it is the other way round. It's created this odd situation where an actual fact or incisive bit of reporting might be considered total bollocks by many (I get the sense you are one) purely because it's a screenshot with a blue box around it. Equally you can just take the loudest, most obnoxious, ill-informed voice from the opposing side and use that to represent the entirety of people that disagree with you (or your news station) to get everyone all fired up and retarded.

So I definitely think it has a lot to offer, but people are too fucking stupid and impressionable to not get wrapped up in the vortex of hyperbole and misinformation.

But.....

Online all new sources appear to be equally authentic. I know that’s bollocks as well as you do, but it’s painfully clear many aren’t so sure.

Of course all media outlets have bias. But traditional media needs to be fairly sure of its facts or face legal action. Many alt news outlets don’t have that same degree of scrutiny and post all kinds of shyte. And that’s before we get onto the topic of troll farms.

Using news apps to get a wide input of new stories is one thing, but using Facebook or twitter as your sole means of getting information risks the inability to differentiate between fact and nonsense. Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting you can’t make that judgement. But, equally many people appear to struggle online on this.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I don’t care what someone has had for lunch, and if you take those sites as a source of news then have a word with yourself.

I'm not sure exactly what you're picturing here, but I'm talking about it being a far quicker and more direct source of lots of different news outlets. You can follow the journalists and publications directly. It often arrives ages before anything appears on the BBC (for example) and it's quite helpful to see the skew/bias when comparing the same story coming from different angles.

The problem is there being no clear line between that and the ramblings of somebody who's either very (twitter) famous or simply said something so insane or outrageous that it's spreads like wildfire.

A lot of legit news is now just as much about regurgitating tweets as it is the other way round. It's created this odd situation where an actual fact or incisive bit of reporting might be considered total bollocks by many (I get the sense you are one) purely because it's a screenshot with a blue box around it. Equally you can just take the loudest, most obnoxious, ill-informed voice from the opposing side and use that to represent the entirety of people that disagree with you (or your news station) to get everyone all fired up and retarded.

So I definitely think it has a lot to offer, but people are too fucking stupid and impressionable to not get wrapped up in the vortex of hyperbole and misinformation.

But.....

Online all new sources appear to be equally authentic. I know that’s bollocks as well as you do, but it’s painfully clear many aren’t so sure.

Of course all media outlets have bias. But traditional media needs to be fairly sure of its facts or face legal action. Many alt news outlets don’t have that same degree of scrutiny and post all kinds of shyte. And that’s before we get onto the topic of troll farms.

Using news apps to get a wide input of new stories is one thing, but using Facebook or twitter as your sole means of getting information risks the inability to differentiate between fact and nonsense. Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting you can’t make that judgement. But, equally many people appear to struggle online on this.

It’s also very likely to be an echo chamber.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I don’t care what someone has had for lunch, and if you take those sites as a source of news then have a word with yourself.

I'm not sure exactly what you're picturing here, but I'm talking about it being a far quicker and more direct source of lots of different news outlets. You can follow the journalists and publications directly. It often arrives ages before anything appears on the BBC (for example) and it's quite helpful to see the skew/bias when comparing the same story coming from different angles.

The problem is there being no clear line between that and the ramblings of somebody who's either very (twitter) famous or simply said something so insane or outrageous that it's spreads like wildfire.

A lot of legit news is now just as much about regurgitating tweets as it is the other way round. It's created this odd situation where an actual fact or incisive bit of reporting might be considered total bollocks by many (I get the sense you are one) purely because it's a screenshot with a blue box around it. Equally you can just take the loudest, most obnoxious, ill-informed voice from the opposing side and use that to represent the entirety of people that disagree with you (or your news station) to get everyone all fired up and retarded.

So I definitely think it has a lot to offer, but people are too fucking stupid and impressionable to not get wrapped up in the vortex of hyperbole and misinformation.

But.....

Online all new sources appear to be equally authentic. I know that’s bollocks as well as you do, but it’s painfully clear many aren’t so sure.

Of course all media outlets have bias. But traditional media needs to be fairly sure of its facts or face legal action. Many alt news outlets don’t have that same degree of scrutiny and post all kinds of shyte. And that’s before we get onto the topic of troll farms.

Using news apps to get a wide input of new stories is one thing, but using Facebook or twitter as your sole means of getting information risks the inability to differentiate between fact and nonsense. Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting you can’t make that judgement. But, equally many people appear to struggle online on this.

I'd say that's all fair enough. I suppose the rabid extremes are easy to spot but there are a lot of smart, influential not-quite-journalists out there who appear pretty legit.

We're in agreement I think, just get rid of all people and social media won't be an issue anymore.