Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Skylinehead

ken wrote: »

This is the all new Donald J.Trump thread.

First off the election is over, the people have spoken, so drop all the Hillary stuff.

.

DrumSteve

Christy42 wrote: »

It does make me suspicious that there could be more damming stuff in there. I mean he revealed the lack of taxes in the first debate. What was the point after that? Especially if there is nothing in them it would have distracted the media from other issues.

I mean the why of evading taxes is obvious. Who does not like more money. I would have been giving out about others for not releasing their tax returns or paying too little tax at the time though.

Imagine the ****fit the GOP would be having if Hilary was in and she had released her returns yet?

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I 100% agree.. I already said he should have released them but I don't think he will. He could have done it before the primaries and people would have probably used it as a sticking point but now it's turned into a huge deal and he'll be forever bomb-boarded with it.

It doesn't set a good precedent for the public. I can understand WHY he evaded taxes through loopholes as a businessman, but he should have gotten the blowback out of the way a long time ago.

Agreed. There's no smoke without fire though and I would think he actually can't release them as they are so bad.

He has boasted about tax avoidance (which in itself is shameful) but I suspect there may well be evidence of tax evasion which is why we won't see them.

The real damage is how all of this affects people's perceptions of government, society and tax.

Christy42

DrumSteve wrote: »

Imagine the ****fit the GOP would be having if Hilary was in and she had released her returns yet?

Ah here. Trump would have had a fit as well but the Democrats would have cared a lot less I can guarantee you. Besides I am of the opinion that name has been mentioned too many times in this thread (even if you aren't talking about her directly).

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you are prepared to take the word of this creditable guy. That seems reasonable.

But not the word of a creditable MI6 agent? Coz thats just not right and anybody who raises it should be ostracised?

You stated 20%, not 'a lot' or 'possible amounts'

Do you have clear evidence to back up this 20% claim or don't you?

Yes, the 20% figure is probably bogus. I should have said ties to Russia. Fact remains she was there when the deal happened and money went through her foundation from Russia. I don't give them the benefit of the doubt with all the other stuff that's come out about the foundation. My view, the hidden server was used and emails deleted to hide pay for play activity. You have a different opinion maybe? Fine. When the FBI investigation is over we should know either way.

Ex M16, operating in a private firm, hired by an anti Trump group, if we're going to be pedantic? I have said a few times in this thread there's a chance some of the info in the report might be real. They tied his lawyer to Prague but apparently it was another guy with the same name so it shows some of isn't entirely fabricated without some kind of source.

It's completely unfair to have one side of an argument about the media and ignore the other side about the collusion, that's why I brought up. I know this thread should only be about Trump.

Cheerful Spring

While everyone is talking about Trump and Russia a piece of news barely got reported by the major news organisations. Rex Tillerson the new secretary of state stated China should be denied access to the Islands they have build in the China South Seas and was akin to Russia taking over Crimea. To deny access would cause a war, the sooner the media wake up to that the better for us all. The Chinese sailed warships near Taiwan yesterday a provocation and have been flying warplanes near restricted airspace close to South Korea and Japan this weekend and not word about it on CNN..

Sonics2k

Genuine question for those against the MSM, of which I personally am not a fan of, but also not a fan of Breibart.

What makes you think you can trust Wikileaks, Breitbart and so on. Breitbart is very very obviously pro Trump and will turn any topic in his favour, much like we saw CNN doing with Hilary.
Wikileaks has a habit of just kinda releasing stuff when it suits them, it's astonishing how much stuff they have that helps Trump, does it not cross your minds that maybe they have stuff against Trump, but don't want to release it as it doesn't suit them?

I often see Trump supporters saying things like "wake up, sheep", but how do you know that you yourself are not just blindly following the same thing, but from a different point of view?

Lastly, and I've asked this question before. Do you really think that Trump has any real or genuine interest in "draining the swamp", or making life better for the average citizen, when so far all he's done has made some very very questionable moves.

p.s. wasn't a fan of Hilary either, she is just as dangerous in my opinion.

Skylinehead

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

While everyone is talking about Trump and Russia a piece of news barely got reported by the major news organisations. Rex Tillerson the new secretary of state stated China should be denied access to the Islands they have build in the China South Seas and was akin to Russia taking over Crimea. To deny access would cause a war, the sooner the media wake up to that the better for us all. The Chinese sailed warships near Taiwan yesterday a provocation and have been flying warplanes near restricted airspace close to South Korea and Japan this weekend and not word about it on CNN..

I searched for "CNN China" and this was literally the first result:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/11/asia/taiwan-deploys-fighter-jets/

But yeah, "not word about it".

Professor Moriarty

Cheerful Spring wrote:

While everyone is talking about Trump and Russia a piece of news barely got reported by the major news organisations. Rex Tillerson the new secretary of state stated China should be denied access to the Islands they have build in the China South Seas and was akin to Russia taking over Crimea. To deny access would cause a war, the sooner the media wake up to that the better for us all. The Chinese sailed warships near Taiwan yesterday a provocation and have been flying warplanes near restricted airspace close to South Korea and Japan this weekend and not word about it on CNN..

What China is doing is wrong. However, bellicose macho threats that will never be carried out is simply more piss and wind from the Trump team.

Hank Scorpio

Sonics2k wrote: »

Genuine question for those against the MSM, of which I personally am not a fan of, but also not a fan of Breibart.

What makes you think you can trust Wikileaks, Breitbart and so on. Breitbart is very very obviously pro Trump and will turn any topic in his favour, much like we saw CNN doing with Hilary.
Wikileaks has a habit of just kinda releasing stuff when it suits them, it's astonishing how much stuff they have that helps Trump, does it not cross your minds that maybe they have stuff against Trump, but don't want to release it as it doesn't suit them?

I often see Trump supporters saying things like "wake up, sheep", but how do you know that you yourself are not just blindly following the same thing, but from a different point of view?

Lastly, and I've asked this question before. Do you really think that Trump has any real or genuine interest in "draining the swamp", or making life better for the average citizen, when so far all he's done has made some very very questionable moves.

p.s. wasn't a fan of Hilary either, she is just as dangerous in my opinion.

Wikileaks are a fairly serious organisation. They managed to get Snowden out of Hong Kong to Russia when he leaked the NSA documents. Assange has been locked up for almost 5 years now in a small living space in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. They've been around for 10 years and released 10 million documents, none of which have been shown to be inaccurate. There documents have been used in court cases and in congress. They've damaged not only the democrats, but also the Republicans in the past. I can understand the suspicion about Russia given the narrative that's been pushed around, but they've also released substantial amounts of documents damaging to the Russian government and Putin.

Assange did a video AMA on reddit two days ago answering stuff like your question about the way they leak the documents. He said it comes down to the leaks having the maximum possible effect as the people who obtain the information take serious risks. He also said things like supply vs demand etc.

I don't know what to think of Trump yet, gotta wait and see. A lot of car companies and what not have announced new plants/updated facilities or whatever in the last week. It's a good start for him. I think he at least deserves a chance, something a lot of people seem to refuse to give him. I'm strongly against HRC.

Breitbart is clearly pro Trump, I don't think I've ever seen a negative story on him there. Like you said it's not dissimilar to the far left sites, but I wouldn't put CNN in that category. There not as bad as people say, but they have shady ethics and do seem politically controlled.

Christy42

Interesting Trump had the line saying do you really think Hillary would be tougher than me on Russia.

Given Hillary would be tough on Russia that could be a big switch. Of course it could also be another trust me line. I get the not mentioning Hillary thing that I am in favour of but Trump mentioned her by name. Of course it might be very worrying to those expecting ww3 if Hillary was pres.

@ Hank: there is a big debate on whether the Trump dossier should have been mentioned (I disagree with the publishing but that is also a debate). A big deal as to why CNN went with the story is the briefing the IC gave Obama and Trump which upped it's importance in their minds (the fact that it was an anti Trump story was definitely a bonus and possibly lower their bar a bit). I don't think the media know of any such briefing with the uranium given the CI don't seem to be interested in investigating (at least afaik).

Without that meeting I don't see cnn going to print with it. If nothing else they knew they would have to defend it.

Also what negative stories have wikileaks published about Russia? It still don't trust wikileaks to print stuff they have on Trump.

At this point Rich seems very unlikely to be the leak given even Trump accepts the Russian hack so while the documents are all fine (though do they want authentic documents or authentic facts in them, I. E. If the CIA had suspicions about someone would they publish the document saying that which would be a real document but the allegations may be false?)

Assange seems more than happy to set the CT crowd off with a few hints in the wrong direction. Of course it also depends on whether Assange really knew the source.

B0jangles

Oh look, apparently therpeople who own L.L. Bean did something nice for Trump, so now he's using his position to directly ask people to buy their products.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/819541997325316096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

That's not unbelievably inappropriate AT ALL!

Cheerful Spring

Skylinehead wrote: »

I searched for "CNN China" and this was literally the first result:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/11/asia/taiwan-deploys-fighter-jets/

But yeah, "not word about it".

I bet on CNN all they are talking about right now is Russia, Trump and hacking? Do you not think its not important news story when the incoming secretary of state says China should be denied access to the islands they created in the China South Seas? Should we not be asking how America will go about doing that? War with China is bigger then a news story about Russia hacking the DNC or Hillary, least in my opinion.

kunst nugget

B0jangles wrote: »

Oh look, apparently therpeople who own L.L. Bean did something nice for Trump, so now he's using his position to directly ask people to buy their products.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/819541997325316096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

That's not unbelievably inappropriate AT ALL!

They hooked him up with some crotchless panties. Perfect for golden showers…

Trent Houseboat

B0jangles wrote:

Oh look, apparently therpeople who own L.L. Bean did something nice for Trump, so now he's using his position to directly ask people to buy their products.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

That's not unbelievably inappropriate AT ALL!

You'd get banned from boards for that level of shilling, but not from the white house.

WinnyThePoo

Christy42 wrote: »

Interesting Trump had the line saying do you really think Hillary would be tougher than me on Russia.

Given Hillary would be tough on Russia that could be a big switch. Of course it could also be another trust me line. I get the not mentioning Hillary thing that I am in favour of but Trump mentioned her by name. Of course it might be very worrying to those expecting ww3 if Hillary was pres.

@ Hank: there is a big debate on whether the Trump dossier should have been mentioned (I disagree with the publishing but that is also a debate). A big deal as to why CNN went with the story is the briefing the IC gave Obama and Trump which upped it's importance in their minds (the fact that it was an anti Trump story was definitely a bonus and possibly lower their bar a bit). I don't think the media know of any such briefing with the uranium given the CI don't seem to be interested in investigating (at least afaik).

Without that meeting I don't see cnn going to print with it. If nothing else they knew they would have to defend it.

Also what negative stories have wikileaks published about Russia? It still don't trust wikileaks to print stuff they have on Trump.

At this point Rich seems very unlikely to be the leak given even Trump accepts the Russian hack so while the documents are all fine (though do they want authentic documents or authentic facts in them, I. E. If the CIA had suspicions about someone would they publish the document saying that which would be a real document but the allegations may be false?)

Assange seems more than happy to set the CT crowd off with a few hints in the wrong direction. Of course it also depends on whether Assange really knew the source.

Sure Trump himself spread the birth conspiracy and with Trump being elected some of his CT followers will feel his Conspiracy as been legitimised .i

Cheerful Spring

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What China is doing is wrong. However, bellicose macho threats that will never be carried out is simply more piss and wind from the Trump team.

Trump news conference says otherwise. While the news media brought up Russia and hacking. Trump was more interested in talking about China. The media are not seeing where this heading yet.

conorhal

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you are prepared to take the word of this creditable guy. That seems reasonable.

But not the word of a creditable MI6 agent? Coz thats just not right and anybody who raises it should be ostracised?

You stated 20%, not 'a lot' or 'possible amounts'

Do you have clear evidence to back up this 20% claim or don't you?

1) He's not an MI6 agent, he's a former MI6 agent working for a 'private intelligence agency'.
2) He was paid to compile a dossier of dirt on Trump by individals looking for dirt and not that fussy about what dirt they could find or how true it might be, he obliged.
3) The last time an intelligence dossier was produced with such convenient timing and based on so little fact it started the Iraq war.

There is nothing either creditable or credible about this character.

Professor Moriarty

B0jangles wrote: »

Oh look, apparently therpeople who own L.L. Bean did something nice for Trump, so now he's using his position to directly ask people to buy their products.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/819541997325316096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

That's not unbelievably inappropriate AT ALL!

I expect Trump to appear as Ronald McDonald for his next press conference.

Professor Moriarty

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Trump news conference says otherwise. While the news media brought up Russia and hacking. Trump was more interested in talking about China. The media are not seeing where this heading yet.

And if they do they'll be shouted down.

Trent Houseboat

Professor Moriarty wrote:

I expect Trump to appear as Ronald McDonald for his next press conference.

A baggy suit and face paint do seem like Donald's style.

Skylinehead

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I bet on CNN all they are talking about right now is Russia, Trump and hacking? Do you not think its not important news story when the incoming secretary of state says China should be denied access to the islands they created in the China South Seas? Should we not be asking how America will go about doing that? War with China is bigger then a news story about Russia hacking the DNC or Hillary, least in my opinion.

I don't think it's bigger than Russia allegedly being Trumps puppeteer, no. And the difference here is that the US have been saying that about China for years, and China's been sending boats and planes around Taiwan for about 50 years now. People generally read "new" news, not just the same thing being said yet again.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

Interesting Trump had the line saying do you really think Hillary would be tougher than me on Russia.

Given Hillary would be tough on Russia that could be a big switch. Of course it could also be another trust me line. I get the not mentioning Hillary thing that I am in favour of but Trump mentioned her by name. Of course it might be very worrying to those expecting ww3 if Hillary was pres.

@ Hank: there is a big debate on whether the Trump dossier should have been mentioned (I disagree with the publishing but that is also a debate). A big deal as to why CNN went with the story is the briefing the IC gave Obama and Trump which upped it's importance in their minds (the fact that it was an anti Trump story was definitely a bonus and possibly lower their bar a bit). I don't think the media know of any such briefing with the uranium given the CI don't seem to be interested in investigating (at least afaik).

Without that meeting I don't see cnn going to print with it. If nothing else they knew they would have to defend it.

Also what negative stories have wikileaks published about Russia? It still don't trust wikileaks to print stuff they have on Trump.

At this point Rich seems very unlikely to be the leak given even Trump accepts the Russian hack so while the documents are all fine (though do they want authentic documents or authentic facts in them, I. E. If the CIA had suspicions about someone would they publish the document saying that which would be a real document but the allegations may be false?)

Assange seems more than happy to set the CT crowd off with a few hints in the wrong direction. Of course it also depends on whether Assange really knew the source.

He mentions the Russia leaks and his links around 52-55.

Rich stuff is probably bs. How careless could they be? If Rich gave assange an insurance video the world would explode. Not gonna happen. So yeh, that's a fishy angle for sure, his subtle hints.

Christy42

conorhal wrote: »

1) He's not an MI6 agent, he's a former MI6 agent working for a 'private intelligence agency'.
2) He was paid to compile a dossier of dirt on Trump by individals looking for dirt and not that fussy about what dirt they could find or how true it might be, he obliged.
3) The last time an intelligence dossier was produced with such convenient timing and based on so little fact it started the Iraq war.

There is nothing either creditable or credible about this character.

1) they have worked with this person (who has gone into hiding apparently) before and found them trust worthy.

2) you have 0 evidence they were not interested in the truth. It never went to print before the election because it could not be verifies so the truth would definitely have been preferable for them

3) a this is very different to the Iraq for several reasons (most notably the intellegence services are not standing by the document) but if you go down that route the last time was when they provided a document about Russian interference just a little bit back and were correct.

4) literally everyone involved has said that these are just rumours, including the ex MI6 agent. If they wanted to discredit Trump they would present them as fact given most of it is near impossible to disprove (remember they were looking to verify they were also looking for proof it was all false and could do neither).

Professor Moriarty

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

A baggy suit and face paint do seem like Donald's style.

InTheTrees

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

He mentions the Russia leaks and his links around 52-55.

Love the russian military shirt.

Is that a message of some kind?

Hank Scorpio

InTheTrees wrote: »

Love the russian military shirt.

Is that a message of some kind?

Yea, Putins hiding underneath it somewhere.

Trent Houseboat

Hank Scorpio wrote:

Yea, Putins hiding underneath it somewhere.

FAKE NEWS!
We all know Putin doesn't wear shirts.

conorhal

Christy42 wrote: »

1) they have worked with this person (who has gone into hiding apparently) before and found them trust worthy.

2) you have 0 evidence they were not interested in the truth. It never went to print before the election because it could not be verifies so the truth would definitely have been preferable for them

3) a this is very different to the Iraq for several reasons (most notably the intellegence services are not standing by the document) but if you go down that route the last time was when they provided a document about Russian interference just a little bit back and were correct.

4) literally everyone involved has said that these are just rumours, including the ex MI6 agent. If they wanted to discredit Trump they would present them as fact given most of it is near impossible to disprove (remember they were looking to verify they were also looking for proof it was all false and could do neither).

Statement 4 is at variance with statemet 2.

The evidence that whichever shady individuals were interested in dirt and not proof is based on the fact that they published a smeer campaign without anything more than rumor.

I mean, I've heard Christy42 likes to pull his plum to the Teletubies, I've no proof of this of course, I just heard it from sombody I'm not prepared to name, but I'm just saying, no smoke without lies fire like!

See how that works?

Hank Scorpio

Trump must be pretty confident there's nothing in the report to dig on him. CNN will be out to get him big time lol

Screw CNN, they let people go on air and call Assange a pedophile

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/819550083742109696