Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Billy86

A Little Pony wrote: »

Trump is elected President and the left comes out and riots and forces riot police to go on the street to stop them from damaging private property. They need to learn that not everyone is a Marxist or a liberal or believes in socialism or is politically correct.

Once they do that, they will get over a GOP President more easily. I remember watching the bit about Bush on the View from that Joy Behar woman who said she would rather have Bush back and it seems like they have forgiven all past Conservatives because of Trump.

Since you have completely avoided addressing my post, I'll just copy and paste it again:

I take it you'll be able to link to these [links of The View calling Reagan a great president] then, because I just googled and youtubed 'the view reagan' and came up blank on both for what you are claiming. And yes, Trump is shaping up to be considerably worse than both of them [hint: this doesn't mean they are saying he was a good president].

Claiming 'these people have never been said no to' is a farce by the way, unless you want to then turn around and try to claim that some of the shenanigans during Reagan and Bush's presidencies (just for a start) never happened. Though maybe he presented a more nuanced argument that you could link to also?

Walter H Price

Billy86 wrote: »

By treating politics as sports really, and of all people Jon Stewart highlighted this excellently years ago.

oh yeh you can see it over there , you are either one team or the other and to be honest it doesnt matter to allot of voters what the candidates policy , record or personal views are any more if you are a republican you vote for whoever they put up a democrat and you vote for their candidate regardless.

Claearest example of that for me this time out were the religious right who backed and voted Trump despite his completely non christian lifestyle ,the elected americas first openly atheist president

http://www.christianpost.com/news/sam-harris-evangelicals-elected-first-atheist-president-trump-171438/

Aman who has Jewish son in law and grad kids , who has had multiple affairs and divorces etc... but he was republican so they voted for him.

Don't get me wrong id have voted Trump but i''m not a christian i don't have any christian values or moral hang ups and quite like his ideas of stronger borders and a ban on Muslim immigration, his non PC comments didn't bother me too much at all but 80+% of the christian vote went to an atheist only because he was their teams candidate.

Hank Scorpio

Trump calling the briefing that Russia hacked the dnc then worked with Wikileaks BS? Looks like it to me.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/819865802849587200

Excellent article here - http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/homeland-security/313364-intel-agencies-ask-americans-to-trust-dont-verify-in-new

Zubeneschamali

A Little Pony wrote: »

it seems like they have forgiven all past Conservatives because of Trump.

No, it's just that Trump is so appalling that past Republicans seem less bad by comparison.

In the same way, I remember people saying Nixon was not so bad when they realized what an idiot Bush was.

jooksavage

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it's just that Trump is so appalling that past Republicans seem less bad by comparison.

In the same way, I remember people saying Nixon was not so bad when they realized what an idiot Bush was.

I recall a piece on BBC a few months back, an interview with an elderly, former Republican who was bemoaning how his party had gone first down the road of fundamentalist neo-conservatism and then adopted the mindless populism of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. At the time, he was holding out hope that a sound trouncing in the election would bring the party back to its roots. So much for all that...

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Trump calling the briefing that Russia hacked the dnc then worked with Wikileaks BS? Looks like it to me.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/819865802849587200

Excellent article here - http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/homeland-security/313364-intel-agencies-ask-americans-to-trust-dont-verify-in-new

This is whst I was wondering before. His tweets right before hand talk about the Russian agent memo and he has already declares that he thinks Russia was probably behind the hack.

This was the tweet before hand and is part of the same train of "thought".

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/819863039902097408

Honestly it seems more likely he confused/is attempting to confuse the two incidents. I expect no refutations on the dnc hack from him though I am curious about his people.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

Honestly it seems more likely he confused/is attempting to confuse the two incidents. I expect no refutations on the dnc hack from him though I am curious about his people.

I think he's blaming the intelligence agencies for leaking the dossier then goes on to say that the Russia hacking is bull and he'll release his own report in 90 days.

Who knows though, it's open to interpretation.

Billy86

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I think he's blaming the intelligence agencies for leaking the dossier then goes on to say that the Russia hacking is bull and he'll release his own report in 90 days.

That's the way I read it.

But that begs the question who 'his people' are and why we should even be entertaining the idea of someone proposing to investigate themselves?

Hank Scorpio

Billy86 wrote: »

But that begs the question who 'his people' are and why we should even be entertaining the idea of someone proposing to investigate themselves?

Get rid of the crooks. Get some honest people in there. Clapper had no problem lying in Congress about the NSA surveillance. 3 or 4 weeks ago he admitted no links between Wikileaks and Russia in a hearing, then all of a sudden *BANG* Obama starts kicking out Russia diplomats and Assange is a Russian agent.

The whole thing stinks.

mzungu

I found this to be an interesting counter view. Patrick Cockburn believes the Trump allegations are most likely false. He was on Sean O'Rourke earlier talking about it. The point made was that a British agent wouldn't get within an asses roar of getting inside information from Kremlin agents. He fears it is a classic case of 'those who know don't tell and those who tell don't know' and said this bared all the same hallmarks of the same BS thrown into the public sphere in the pre and post Gulf War era about Saddam Hussein.

Anyway, here is the article he wrote about it:
Link: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-president-russia-dossier-fake-news-sex-allegations-putin-kremlin-saddam-hussein-weapons-a7524001.html

I read the text of the dossier on Donald Trump’s alleged dirty dealings with a scepticism that soon turned into complete disbelief. The memo has all the hallmarks of such fabrications, which is too much detail – and that detail largely uncheckable – and too many names of important people placed there to impress the reader with the sheer quantity and quality of information.

I was correspondent in Moscow in the 1980s and again during the first years in power of Vladimir Putin. Every so often, people would tell me intriguing facts about the dark doings of the Kremlin and its complicity in various crimes, such as the infamous apartment block bombings in 1999. But my heart used to sink when the informant claimed to know too much and did not see that what they were saying contained a fatal contradiction: Putin and his people were pictured as unscrupulous and violent people, but at the same time they were childishly incapable of keeping a secret damaging to themselves.

The conclusions reached in the Trump dossier similarly claim to be based on multiple sources of information where, in the nature of things, they are unlikely to exist. The dossier cites at least seven of them. “Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry and a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively, [said that] the Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US Republican presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP, for at least five years.”

I obviously failed as a correspondent when I was in Russia because it turns out that Moscow is choc-a-bloc with fellows in senior positions willing to blow the gaff on the Kremlin’s deep laid plans. A and B, despite achieving high rank, apparently remain touchingly naive and more than willing to make revelations that, if known, would get them imprisoned or shot in short order.

Reading the papers on Trump brought back memories of talking to Iraqi defectors in the 1990s who claimed to have plenty of information about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and gossip about his family affairs. It did not take long to work out that they were making it up when they produced convincing but uncheckable details about the doings of some of the more dangerous and suspicious people in the world, with whom the defectors claimed have had frank and revealing conversations.

In its determination to damage Trump, the US press corps has been happy to suspend disbelief in this dubious document. The former member of MI6, Christopher Steele, reportedly has a high reputation in espionage circles and was stationed in Moscow 20 years ago. The New York Times is unworried by his consequent inability to travel to Moscow “to study Mr Trump’s connections there”. This is where the famed MI6 tradecraft proved so useful. Steele is said to have “hired native Russian speakers to call informants inside Russia and made surreptitious contact with his own connections in the country as well.”

The word “contact” is a useful word for journalists because it could mean a highly-placed friend or, alternatively, it might refer to some lowly freelancer who is being paid to supply information. Having Russian speakers call up Russians in Russia is an astute move, though it presupposes that FSB does not monitor foreign phone calls to people with sensitive information.

I suspect that those Iraqi defectors who used to tell me tall tales about WMD and the home life of Saddam Hussein would have dreamed up a more convincing story than this.

Venom

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Get rid of the crooks. Get some honest people in there. Clapper had no problem lying in Congress about the NSA surveillance. 3 or 4 weeks ago he admitted no links between Wikileaks and Russia in a hearing, then all of a sudden *BANG* Obama starts kicking out Russia diplomats and Assange is a Russian agent.

The whole thing stinks.

It's almost like Obama was trying his best to create a huge mess to leave for Trump to have to deal with!

A Little Pony

Getting rid of crooks in politics is like getting rid of football players in football.

Venom

mzungu wrote: »

I found this to be an interesting counter view. Patrick Cockburn believes the Trump allegations are most likely false. He was on Sean O'Rourke earlier talking about it. The point made was that a British agent wouldn't get within an asses roar of getting inside information from Kremlin agents. He fears it is a classic case of 'those who know don't tell and those who tell don't know' and said this bared all the same hallmarks of the same BS thrown into the public sphere in the pre and post Gulf War era about Saddam Hussein.

Anyway, here is the article he wrote about it:
Link: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-president-russia-dossier-fake-news-sex-allegations-putin-kremlin-saddam-hussein-weapons-a7524001.html

It does certainly have the ring of the old saying "If something sounds to good to be true, it probably is".

jooksavage

A Little Pony wrote: »

Getting rid of crooks in politics is like getting rid of football players in football.

This. This is why Trump is where he is. Nihilism.

ScumLord

A Little Pony wrote: »

Trump is elected President and the left comes out and riots and forces riot police to go on the street to stop them from damaging private property. They need to learn that not everyone is a Marxist or a liberal or believes in socialism or is politically correct.

Once they do that, they will get over a GOP President more easily. I remember watching the bit about Bush on the View from that Joy Behar woman who said she would rather have Bush back and it seems like they have forgiven all past Conservatives because of Trump.

"The left" isn't a real thing, it's not an organisation or a people, it's a loose collection of ideals that people either agree with or they don't. "the left" didn't go on the streets rioting. Some people went on the street and acted like babies, because that's pretty much all they know how to do.

God knows what wouldn't have happened if Trump lost, are you telling me these people wouldn't have protested?

This left/right thing is utter nonsense. I don't know how people have managed to congeal everything down to left and right. It's stupid to think problems can be solved by applying a narrow set of ideals, whether they're left or right. We should do what's best and what's necessary, not what some minority thinks is right or wrong based on their own biases.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I think he's blaming the intelligence agencies for leaking the dossier then goes on to say that the Russia hacking is bull and he'll release his own report in 90 days.

Who knows though, it's open to interpretation.

Maybe we should wait until he makes himself clear. As Billy says I worry he is intentionally attempting to confuse people. I mean why say he thinks Russia is behind the hack then? Also who are his people and why can we trust them? No point going through a whole load of effort just to find out the new people are worse. I feel we should check that now.

I am also pretty sure Obama kicked out Russians because they were behind the hack and other activities around onfluencing the election. Not whether or not there was absolute proof that is where wikileaks got their info (though it does obviously suggest it, it is not proof).

I am also confused as to why he is not releasing for 90 days if he has proof or alternatively how he is so confident without the investigation having happened. Assuming he has no insider knowledge but I think that scenario is even worse for him.

Anyway without further evidence/clarification I am putting this in the irrelevant pile.

Clarebelly

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Get rid of the crooks. Get some honest people in there. Clapper had no problem lying in Congress about the NSA surveillance. 3 or 4 weeks ago he admitted no links between Wikileaks and Russia in a hearing, then all of a sudden *BANG* Obama starts kicking out Russia diplomats and Assange is a Russian agent.

The whole thing stinks.

Rotten.
Pure "reds under the beds" stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW12IvceAIQ

My name is URL

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

"My people will have a full report on hacking within 90 days!"

His people? lmao. The guy he appointed as 'cyber tsar' has an easily hackable professional website himself.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/13/giuliani_joomla_outdated_site/

How long is it going to take for you lot to realise that he has surrounded himself by complete idiots, and is handing them roles in which they have shown themselves to be completely inept?

Leroy42

Christy42 wrote: »

Maybe we should wait until he makes himself clear. As Billy says I worry he is intentionally attempting to confuse people. I mean why say he thinks Russia is behind the hack then? Also who are his people and why can we trust them? No point going through a whole load of effort just to find out the new people are worse. I feel we should check that now.

I am also pretty sure Obama kicked out Russians because they were behind the hack and other activities around onfluencing the election. Not whether or not there was absolute proof that is where wikileaks got their info (though it does obviously suggest it, it is not proof).

I am also confused as to why he is not releasing for 90 days if he has proof or alternatively how he is so confident without the investigation having happened. Assuming he has no insider knowledge but I think that scenario is even worse for him.

Anyway without further evidence/clarification I am putting this in the irrelevant pile.

But all prior experience with Trump is that this is nothing more than a stalling tactic (which works). Remember he was going to tell us a week ago what went on? He has bought himself another 90 days, and seemingly people are willing to give it to him despite the fact he has already said he knows the real truth and called out the 'intelligence' on being useless.

He doesn't know anymore than they do. Still, he has 4 years to work these 'kinks' out and I do think everyone would actually be wise to cool the jets and leave him off. He's going to do whatever anyway, this constant feeding of his ego is not helping anyone.

Let him have his inauguration, get his feet under the table and come back to him after the 1st 100 days to work out what he actually did, rather than what he has done.

The media have shown themselves to be totally incapable of dealing with him properly (both in terms of the approach and the questioning) and that is never a good mixture. A president with only a passing acquaintance to the truth and a media with no credibility. The should take the next 100 days to forget about the trivial stuff and actually come up with important issues to take him to task on. He is more than happy to turn the debate into a MSM v the world, or Russia Hacks etc.

SkinnyBuddha

My name is URL wrote: »

His people? lmao. The guy he appointed as 'cyber tsar' has an easily hackable professional website himself.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/13/giuliani_joomla_outdated_site/

How long is it going to take for you lot to realise that he has surrounded himself by complete idiots, and is handing them roles in which they have shown themselves to be completely inept?

I prefer the waterfordwhispers take on it
http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2017/01/13/guiliani-to-find-hackers-after-mastering-how-to-open-link-in-new-tab/

A Little Pony

My name is URL wrote: »

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

"My people will have a full report on hacking within 90 days!"

His people? lmao. The guy he appointed as 'cyber tsar' has an easily hackable professional website himself.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/13/giuliani_joomla_outdated_site/

How long is it going to take for you lot to realise that he has surrounded himself by complete idiots, and is handing them roles in which they have shown themselves to be completely inept?

Can't be any more incompetent than Obama, lets be honest.

SkinnyBuddha

A Little Pony wrote: »

Can't be any more incompetent than Obama, lets be honest.

Obama is many leagues above Trumpski.

Hank Scorpio

My name is URL wrote: »

His people? lmao. The guy he appointed as 'cyber tsar' has an easily hackable professional website himself.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/13/giuliani_joomla_outdated_site/

How long is it going to take for you lot to realise that he has surrounded himself by complete idiots, and is handing them roles in which they have shown themselves to be completely inept?

Who has Obama surrounded himself with, liars?

Two reports not have been released to the public now offering zero evidence that Russia hacked the DNC and were working with Wikileaks.

The US Government stance is that Assange is a Russian agent and Putin himself was directing the sequence of the email releases.

Trump had leaned ( again today ) that the intelligence agencies are corrupt.

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

But all prior experience with Trump is that this is nothing more than a stalling tactic (which works). Remember he was going to tell us a week ago what went on? He has bought himself another 90 days, and seemingly people are willing to give it to him despite the fact he has already said he knows the real truth and called out the 'intelligence' on being useless.

He doesn't know anymore than they do.

It is frustrating. As I said this changes nothing for me but I am not in a position of power. Not the first time he has used this tactic with his wall being paid for by Americans now.

I only hope that Congress and the House push for action.

My name is URL

A Little Pony wrote: »

Can't be any more incompetent than Obama, lets be honest.

Whatever honest is in your reality, pal

Let's see... he's appointed a climate change denier as Enviroment chief, and anti-vaxxer as Health chief, a man that says there should be no Freedom of Religion as Attorney General.

The list goes on and on like that. Can you even begin to put an argument forward in favor of his picks, without mentioning Obama or your other bogey men?

Go on. Attempt to support any of his cabinet appointments.

Leroy42

A Little Pony wrote: »

Can't be any more incompetent than Obama, lets be honest.

ALP, its strange. You claim that Obama is one or the worst presidents and yet on anything related to Trump your response tends to be hes probably only as bad as.

I mean its hardly a high bar based on your opinion of Obama

Hank Scorpio

My name is URL wrote: »

Whatever honest is in your reality, pal

Let's see... he's appointed a climate change denier as Enviroment chief, and anti-vaxxer as Health chief, a man that says there should be no Freedom of Religion as Attorney General.

The list goes on and on like that. Can you even begin to put an argument forward in favor of his picks, without mentioning Obama or your other bogey men?

Go on. Attempt to support any of his cabinet appointments.

Do you know how Obama's cabinet was assembled? Citigroup bank chose the nominations.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8190

A Little Pony

My name is URL wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Can't be any more incompetent than Obama, lets be honest.

Whatever honest is in your reality, pal

Let's see... he's appointed a climate change denier as Enviroment chief, and anti-vaxxer as Health chief, a man that says there should be no Freedom of Religion as Attorney General.

The list goes on and on like that. Can you even begin to put an argument forward in favor of his picks, without mentioning Obama or your other bogey men?

Go on. Attempt to support any of his cabinet appointments.

Mattis is probably the finest American military strategist since Robert E Lee. Once ISIS has been defeated thanks to Trumps brilliance with his military generals, people will be praising him to the hills.

My name is URL

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Do you know how Obama's cabinet was assembled?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8190

Can you even begin to put an argument forward in favor of his picks, without mentioning Obama or your other bogey men?

So that's a no. then?

I don't give a fcuk about Obama, but you'd be hard pressed to say his appointees were in any way worse than Trump's regardless of how they were assembled.

This thread is about Trump. Can at least one of his supporters here try to logically back up any of his decisions on who to appoint?

My name is URL

A Little Pony wrote: »

Mattis is probably the finest American military strategist since Robert E Lee. Once ISIS has been defeated thanks to Trumps brilliance with his military generals, people will be praising him to the hills.

You know Mattis was gonna be Clinton's choice too, and was US Central Command Chief under Obama, right?