Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

recedite

silverharp wrote: »

Fake news?

Its issued by "The Company" and (self) certified as being from a "confidential sensitive source".
How could you possibly doubt it?

robindch

recedite wrote: »

How could you possibly doubt it?

Why would we doubt it? Because DJT's reddit supporters now claim that 'twas they wot did it!

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5n8yd9/when_you_never_verify_anything_because_youre_fake/

Beautiful. Just beautiful!

FA Hayek

Lets be honest here, Fake news is not fake if we have an emotional reaction in the hope that its not fake, hence we have a mod posting up fake news in the effort to use it against Trump, because he is emotionally invested.

Humans are so predictable.

Christy42

FA Hayek wrote: »

Lets be honest here, Fake news is not fake if we have an emotional reaction in the hope that its not fake, hence we have a mod posting up fake news in the effort to use it against Trump, because he is emotionally invested.

Humans are so predictable.

Which bit is fake? The bit about 4chan claiming to have made up the Trump is compromised document?

Bristolscale7

silverharp

dont attack Trump it only makes him stronger. anyone remember what the press conference was supposed to be about

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

dont attack Trump it only makes him stronger.

Who's attacking him?

All that these latest allegations have caused is a planet-wide laughing fit which was so long and so loud, that it must have been heard on Pluto! :rolleyes:

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

Who's attacking him?

All that these latest allegations have caused is a planet-wide laughing fit which was so long and so loud, that it must have been heard on Pluto! :rolleyes:

just in the sense it actually took the focus off what he is doing with his business interests when he is President. I don't think many American's are concerned with the issue but if you were the media trying to hold power to account they failed

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

I don't think many American's are concerned with the issue but if you were the media trying to hold power to account they failed

Couldn't agree more. And as above, DJT has so many conflicts of interest and made such intentionally appalling choices for important positions in the incoming administration and behaved in such a continually juvenile fashion, that the media is going to find it hard indeed to know even where to start holding him to account - and that's assuming that anybody in that substantial portion of US media outlets which are right-wing actually wants to.

If nothing else, hearing about a range of alleged nutty activities in Russia made a welcome change from, say, hearing an anti-vaxxer claim that he'd been asked to head up a commission on "vaccine safety and scientific integrity".

Were it not open to misinterpretation, I'd call it a little light relief.

FA Hayek

Christy42 wrote: »

Which bit is fake? The bit about 4chan claiming to have made up the Trump is compromised document?

Has ANY of the claims been verified? Nope, in fact the FBI admit that one of the claims is patently false (Michael Cohen was never in Prague, it was the wrong man). Remember, this is an Atheist forum where people lack a belief in a deity because there is no evidence or proof of such.

Yet, the same rules do not apply when its ideologically convenient. Do you know what the word for that is?

I go back to the words of a great man, one most people here respect. People should heed those words, especially given the media circus we have had over the past year.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

smacl

silverharp wrote: »

just in the sense it actually took the focus off what he is doing with his business interests when he is President. I don't think many American's are concerned with the issue but if you were the media trying to hold power to account they failed

They're in the news too!

Trump Organization handover plan slammed by ethics chief

The director of the US Office of Government Ethics has criticised Donald Trump's plan to hand control of his business empire to his sons before his inauguration on 20 January

Starting to feel very much like one of the essays from Gore Vidal's Decline and fall of the American Empire

robindch

robindch wrote: »

As above, next steps are probably with the CIA or the outgoing administration and whether or not the report will be repudiated, partially or fully.

DNI James Clapper releases a statement saying that the CIA "has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable" ([url=]https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/224-press-releases-2017/1469-dni-clapper-statement-on-conversation-with-president-elect-trumplink[/url]).

Trump says that Clapper called him yesterday "to denounce the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated. Made up, phony facts". (link). Clapper's readout of the call, on the contrary, does not contain any such denunciation.

The BBC's Paul Wood claims that multiple individuals informed him that there were multiple tapes from multiple locations from multiple dates containing material "of a sexual nature" (link).

jooksavage

robindch wrote: »

DNI James Clapper releases a statement saying that the CIA "has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable" (https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/224-press-releases-2017/1469-dni-clapper-statement-on-conversation-with-president-elect-trumplink).

Trump says that Clapper called him yesterday "to denounce the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated. Made up, phony facts". (link). Clapper's readout of the call, on the contrary, does not contain any such denunciation.

The BBC's Paul Wood claims that multiple individuals informed him that there were multiple tapes from multiple locations from multiple dates containing material "of a sexual nature" (link).

This isn't going away. 4 years of this is going to be exhausting, unless of course, one of the tapes mercifully surfaces. That might shorten his term.

PopePalpatine

jooksavage wrote: »

This isn't going away. 4 years of this is going to be exhausting, unless of course, one of the tapes mercifully surfaces. That might shorten his term.

...and leave us with Mike Pence.

FA Hayek

jooksavage wrote: »

This isn't going away. 4 years of this is going to be exhausting, unless of course, one of the tapes mercifully surfaces. That might shorten his term.

Why would this shorten his term? Even if the sexual allegations are true, why would he have to resign over it?

If they are true, it also means that Obama may have been caught in such a scandal as well.

I look at this as the establishment and the intelligence community desperately trying to have leverage against Trump.

BoatMad

PopePalpatine wrote: »

...and leave us with Mike Pence.

OMG, keep the Donald , Keep the Donald

Bristolscale7

PopePalpatine wrote: »

...and leave us with Mike Pence.

I wouldn't be surprised if Pence, that turbo-christian piece of ****, undermines Trump and gets him ****ed out. Roll on theocracy.

Christy42

FA Hayek wrote: »

Why would this shorten his term? Even if the sexual allegations are true, why would he have to resign over it?

If they are true, it also means that Obama may have been caught in such a scandal as well.

I look at this as the establishment and the intelligence community desperately trying to have leverage against Trump.

The Christians might go against him or people might then believe the rest of the document. You are right that a sex scandal with nothing illegal happening should not be enough to impeach the president but I reckon it would be enough with this document.

I am pretty sure Obama has not been comprised by Russia. I reckon it is more likely the pro Russian dude. Plus it is also a bit late to impeach Obama.

You can look at it how you like I guess. The intellegence community in America had next to nothing to do with this situation. Not really sure how it was ever meant to give leverage.

FA Hayek

Christy42 wrote: »

The Christians might go against him or people might then believe the rest of the document.

You mean a divorced man, who privately is pro-gay and pro-choice would not have done so already? I will let you in on a secret, the Christian lobby for want of a better word, is no where near as powerful as people want to believe. It just feels good for people to have 'an other' as a powerful enemy.

You are right that a sex scandal with nothing illegal happening should not be enough to impeach the president but I reckon it would be enough with this document.

So, its not enough but it would be enough... hmmm talk about a nothing answer. Irrational hope right here folks. :0

I am pretty sure Obama has not been comprised by Russia. I reckon it is more likely the pro Russian dude. Plus it is also a bit late to impeach Obama.

If the hotel room was bugged and on camera when Trump stayed there, it could stand to reason it could be the same when Obama stayed there.

You can look at it how you like I guess. The intellegence community in America had next to nothing to do with this situation. Not really sure how it was ever meant to give leverage.

Really, How old are you. The intelligence agencies in the United States have been overtly political for decades going back to J Edgar Hoover. Need I remind you of the Iraq dossier, which was read out at the United Nations General Assembly, which turned out to be completely false and was found out to be lifted from a Phd found online, copied and pasted. Such short memories. Only the stupid and naive trust what these guys have to say completely.

The heads and leaders of the intelligence community have a lot to lose when/if Trump cleans house. This could be viewed as a shot across the bow, or a last sting of a dying wasp. The mainstream media of course are playing their usual feckless fool roles here, just like they did in the lead up to Iraq.

BoatMad

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if Pence, that turbo-christian piece of ****, undermines Trump and gets him ****ed out. Roll on theocracy.

he's truely a scary dude

Pherekydes

FA Hayek wrote: »

If the hotel room was bugged and on camera when Trump stayed there, it could stand to reason it could be the same when Obama stayed there.

You think Obama hired prostitutes to piss in the bed?

Christy42

FA Hayek wrote: »

You mean a divorced man, who privately is pro-gay and pro-choice would not have done so already? I will let you in on a secret, the Christian lobby for want of a better word, is no where near as powerful as people want to believe. It just feels good for people to have 'an other' as a powerful enemy.



So, its not enough but it would be enough... hmmm talk about a nothing answer. Irrational hope right here folks. :0



If the hotel room was bugged and on camera when Trump stayed there, it could stand to reason it could be the same when Obama stayed there.



Really, How old are you. The intelligence agencies in the United States have been overtly political for decades going back to J Edgar Hoover. Need I remind you of the Iraq dossier, which was read out at the United Nations General Assembly, which turned out to be completely false and was found out to be lifted from a Phd found online, copied and pasted. Such short memories. Only the stupid and naive trust what these guys have to say completely.

The heads and leaders of the intelligence community have a lot to lose when/if Trump cleans house. This could be viewed as a shot across the bow, or a last sting of a dying wasp. The mainstream media of course are playing their usual feckless fool roles here, just like they did in the lead up to Iraq.

Obama is a bit smarter than to do something dumb in a Russian hotel.

I said should not be enough. Not was not enough. I said I agree a sex scandal should not be the end of a presidency but in this case I believe it would be the end. No hope required.

The last bit you go off on a tangent rant. There was a shop down the road from me robbed. Do you that was them too? I did not say I trusted them implicitly. I did not say they were not political. You made that up so you could have in your little rant. I said they had nothing to do with dossier. Of course if want to go around thinking every shadow is an cia agent then feel free. Not every thing bad that happens is because of them. Only the stupid and naive believe otherwise. I mean the document passed through how many hands before the FBI got it? And the leaked version was the one that was being talked about before the FBI got it. Come on there are so many possible leak points there that it is pure bullheadedness to stick it on them. I suppose dear leader said it so it must be true.

Christian lobby is plenty powerful in the states. They were just happy to over look a few things with Trump to defeat Clinton. Now if something big came out it would Pence next up...

smacl

FA Hayek wrote: »

Why would this shorten his term? Even if the sexual allegations are true, why would he have to resign over it?

Trying to impeach a US president as a result of a sex scandal? Seems I've heard that one before. With Trump's popularity in decline even before this event, I'd say he's facing a very rocky road. I'd agree that his longer term success is based on how much he improves the lot of the disaffected working classes that voted him in. His notional mechanism here is to bring well paid manufacturing jobs back back home by strong-arming the multinationals via import tariffs. I'd have serious doubts whether he can succeed here for a number of reasons. Notably the vast majority of manufacturing jobs are no longer well paid, globalisation has already led to a drive to the bottom in terms of wages, and even with high tariffs locally manufactured goods are not going to be competitive in anything other than the local market. Today's manufacturing industries are based around high levels of automation to reduce the wage bill on one hand and cheap labour on the other, nether of which suggest any possibility of a return to the halcyon days of the American blue collar worker. As such, Trumps popularity is liable to continue in steep decline, to the degree that he will get fed to the wolves soon enough.

Peregrinus

Not necessarily.

Another plank in his campaign was a commitment to (a) big tax cuts, plus (b) big expenditure on infrastructure and on building up the military. Obviously that involves a massive increase in US public debt, and the Republican party has spent the last eight years hyperventilating about budget deficits and shutting down government periodically because deficits are not being brought under control. If Trump does what he says he will with regard to taxes and spending, he will be bringing in budget deficits between three and five times higher than anything Obama brought in, but I predict that a Republican-controlled Congress will allow this because Trump is, after all, not black. (He's orange, which is much more acceptable.)

If I'm right, there'll be at least a short- to medium-term upswing in the American economy. This won't create manufacturing employment, but it will create employment, and a general rise in prosperity and consumption. If the bubble doesn't burst before 2020 it could even secure his re-election, if some other aspect of his preposterous "policies" doesn't bring him down.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not necessarily.

Another plank in his campaign was a commitment to (a) big tax cuts, plus (b) big expenditure on infrastructure and on building up the military. Obviously that involves a massive increase in US public debt, and the Republican party has spent the last eight years hyperventilating about budget deficits and shutting down government periodically because deficits are not being brought under control. If Trump does what he says he will with regard to taxes and spending, he will be bringing in budget deficits between three and five times higher than anything Obama brought in, but I predict that a Republican-controlled Congress will allow this because Trump is, after all, not black. (He's orange, which is much more acceptable.)

If I'm right, there'll be at least a short- to medium-term upswing in the American economy. This won't create manufacturing employment, but it will create employment, and a general rise in prosperity and consumption. If the bubble doesn't burst before 2020 it could even secure his re-election, if some other aspect of his preposterous "policies" doesn't bring him down.

meanwhile the EU will be trying to kick Greece and Italy out of the EU as they teeter on bankruptcy , France and Holland will be trying to leave the EU while the Germans try to boss everyone around. The US is going to look ragingly successful by 2020

smacl

silverharp wrote: »

meanwhile the EU will be trying to kick Greece and Italy out of the EU as they teeter on bankruptcy , France and Holland will be trying to leave the EU while the Germans try to boss everyone around. The US is going to look ragingly successful by 2020

There's a non-sequitur if ever I saw one. How exactly is Europe in crisis going to make America more successful? I see two big losers and no real winners, all courtesy of the alt-right.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

There's a non-sequitur if ever I saw one. How exactly is Europe in crisis going to make America more successful? I see two big losers and no real winners, all courtesy of the alt-right.

financially I would say there is going to be a capital moving out of Europe and into the US for investment or just safe haven. Interest rates will be rising higher here if the debt market is in trouble.
blaming the "alt right" for all this has to be up there with witch burning because the crops failed :pac:

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

(He's orange, which is much more acceptable.)

Sounds like they need a few more Irish in their government, we never really accepted orange

If I'm right, there'll be at least a short- to medium-term upswing in the American economy. This won't create manufacturing employment, but it will create employment, and a general rise in prosperity and consumption. If the bubble doesn't burst before 2020 it could even secure his re-election, if some other aspect of his preposterous "policies" doesn't bring him down.

I think you have to look a where this upswing will occur and who it will benefit on order to see how it effects Trumps supporters take on Trump. Certainly if he can borrow enough money, he can beef up the military, which is also a big employer in the states. You've also got the construction sector if he gets money for infrastructure (and walls). Outside of that I'd say pickings are slim. Rebuilding high-tech and pharma sectors that have largely moved off-shore seems unlikely without having to bend over to the multi-nationals to such an extent it is of little value.

Christy42

smacl wrote: »

Sounds like they need a few more Irish in their government, we never really accepted orange



I think you have to look a where this upswing will occur and who it will benefit on order to see how it effects Trumps supporters take on Trump. Certainly if he can borrow enough money, he can beef up the military, which is also a big employer in the states. You've also got the construction sector if he gets money for infrastructure (and walls). Outside of that I'd say pickings are slim. Rebuilding high-tech and pharma sectors that have largely moved off-shore seems unlikely without having to bend over to the multi-nationals to such an extent it is of little value.

It is still temporary though. The military has to be payed by the government year after year. Similarly with construction workers-it only works as long as the government directly paying them. That is why you need to build up the economy so that eventually other people can start paying these people. Infastructure might help with that but the military (unless he starts a few wars) and wall won't. Of course as has been pointed it it might last long enough to get him in again in 2020.

Interesting for a republican administration to essentially reduce unemployment via the government directly paying them all though!

FA Hayek

Christy42 wrote: »

Obama is a bit smarter than to do something dumb in a Russian hotel.

Possibly, but I suppose himself and Michelle played tiddlywinks.

I said should not be enough. Not was not enough. I said I agree a sex scandal should not be the end of a presidency but in this case I believe it would be the end. No hope required.

Ha, you should be careful using words like that in an Atheist forum, especially when there is no evidence to back it up. This is not the forum to go on about beliefs solely on ones faith for a certain outcome.

The last bit you go off on a tangent rant. There was a shop down the road from me robbed. Do you that was them too? I did not say I trusted them implicitly. I did not say they were not political. You made that up so you could have in your little rant. I said they had nothing to do with dossier. Of course if want to go around thinking every shadow is an cia agent then feel free. Not every thing bad that happens is because of them. Only the stupid and naive believe otherwise. I mean the document passed through how many hands before the FBI got it? And the leaked version was the one that was being talked about before the FBI got it. Come on there are so many possible leak points there that it is pure bullheadedness to stick it on them. I suppose dear leader said it so it must be true.

Perhaps you should argue the points I made, not the points you think I made.

Regardless, you state that the Intelligence community had next to nothing to do with it, when in fact the whole reason it was reported was the belief that this dossier (unconfirmed if it was the same one or not) was briefed by said intelligence community to senior officials including Obama and Trump, which then made it news worthy according to the MSM.

In this scenario the old LBJ story comes to the fore.

As the old saying goes, If you're explaining, you're losing. Or, more pungently, there's the (possibly true!) story about LBJ spreading a rumor that his opponent was a pig-****er. Aide: "Lyndon, you know he doesn't do that!" Johnson: "I know. I just want to make him deny it." If you're denying, you're losing.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/04/if-youre-denying-youre-losing

Decent article as well, by a left leaning site which is very pertinent with this story.