Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Hank Scorpio

My name is URL wrote: »

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?

I'm willing to give them a chance and judge not now but in a year or whatever. Obv I have questions over certain picks. Some picks I find good.

It's better the President gets to chose rather than a bunch of unelected hippos from a bank deciding who should run the Government.

Clarebelly

My name is URL wrote: »

This thread is about Trump.

My name is URL wrote: »

You know Mattis was gonna be Clinton's choice too right?

.

Hank Scorpio

Glenn Greenwald is great.

A Little Pony

My name is URL wrote: »

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?

No one is buying this nonsense that Trump isn't putting competent people in his cabinet. Of course he will have the best in America around him leading his administration. People always underestimating Trump, the guy knows more than people think.

Sand

A Little Pony wrote: »

No one is buying this nonsense that Trump isn't putting competent people in his cabinet. Of course he will have the best in America around him leading his administration. People always underestimating Trump, the guy knows more than people think.

He cant even get the best in America to play at his inauguration. Mattis is a decent pick I'll grant you. The rest are an assembly of incompetent, unqualified, big business shills.

Hank Scorpio

Sand wrote: »

He cant even get the best in America to play at his inauguration. Mattis is a decent pick I'll grant you. The rest are an assembly of incompetent, unqualified, big business shills.

Oh noes, the Hollywood elite don't like Trump.

Would have loved seeing John Podesta as secretary of state.

Sand

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Oh noes, the Hollywood elite don't like Trump.

Would have loved seeing John Podesta as secretary of state.

Only a minority of Americans like Trump.

Hank Scorpio

Sand wrote: »

Only a minority of Americans like Trump.

Are we including the 12 million illegal aliens?

People need to get over the fact he won in all honesty. It grows more pathetic by the day.

PopePalpatine

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Are we including the 12 million illegal aliens?

People need to get over the fact he won in all honesty. It grows more pathetic by the day.

People ARE getting over the fact that he won. That shouldn't mean Trump has free reign to do what he wants and that they must shut up about anything he does.

Hank Scorpio

PopePalpatine wrote: »

People ARE getting over the fact that he won. That shouldn't mean Trump has free reign to do what he wants and that they must shut up about anything he does.

I don't think that either. I've criticized him several times in this thread. My angle is Trump is going as far as he can to say without directly saying it that there is no evidence Russia were working with Wikileaks, even after he was briefed on it. I think it's all political.

IMO people shouldn't automatically assume what the intel agencies are saying is true. They can't discredit Wikileaks authenticity so they have to come at it from another angle, i.e. Calling Assange a Russia agent under the control of Putin.

ebbsy

Sand wrote: »

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Oh noes, the Hollywood elite don't like Trump.

Would have loved seeing John Podesta as secretary of state.

Only a minority of Americans like Trump.

Go read a few books on how the election works over there. And sprout a brain while you are at it.

Mod: banned.

SkinnyBuddha

ebbsy wrote: »

And sprout a brain while you are at it.

oh the irony is delicious :rolleyes:

Venom

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I don't think that either. I've criticized him several times in this thread. My angle is Trump is going as far as he can to say without directly saying it that there is no evidence Russia were working with Wikileaks, even after he was briefed on it. I think it's all political.

IMO people shouldn't automatically assume what the intel agencies are saying is true. They can't discredit Wikileaks authenticity so they have to come at it from another angle, i.e. Calling Assange a Russia agent under the control of Putin.

The left tried to make Trump a joke from the start of the election and it backfired on them when he got the party nomination. Then they maintained he had zero chance of winning will every poll showing Clinton to win in a landslide and it backfired big time as he won by a pretty huge margin. Then they tried the whole "fake news" angle and it got turned on them almost from the start. Now there just grasping at straws that it was all the "Russians" doing!

Gonna be a great four years of entertainment at this rate

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I don't think that either. I've criticized him several times in this thread. My angle is Trump is going as far as he can to say without directly saying it that there is no evidence Russia were working with Wikileaks, even after he was briefed on it. I think it's all political.

IMO people shouldn't automatically assume what the intel agencies are saying is true. They can't discredit Wikileaks authenticity so they have to come at it from another angle, i.e. Calling Assange a Russia agent under the control of Putin.

Trump has said he believes Russia was behind the hack. He also entirely dismissed the claim before seeing the evidence at all. I haven't heard anyone get the full briefing who has not said they think it was Russia.

Of course you keep slipping back to the wikileaks part. Trump said he would disprove that the Russians were behind the leak. Nothing about Wikileaks there and that is what he should be held to.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

Trump has said he believes Russia was behind the hack. He also entirely dismissed the claim before seeing the evidence at all. I haven't heard anyone get the full briefing who has not said they think it was Russia.

Of course you keep slipping back to the wikileaks part. Trump said he would disprove that the Russians were behind the leak. Nothing about Wikileaks there and that is what he should be held to.

If he believes it why does he keep putting "intelligence" on twitter? He has never come out and said anything definite, even after the briefing at the press conference he said it looks like it was Russia, he didn't say it was. In other words, he wasn't shown conclusive proof it was Russia.

This tweet doesn't sound like a man who believes what he's is being told.

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

Hank Scorpio

Venom wrote: »

The left tried to make Trump a joke from the start of the election and it backfired on them when he got the party nomination. Then they maintained he had zero chance of winning will every poll showing Clinton to win in a landslide and it backfired big time as he won by a pretty huge margin. Then they tried the whole "fake news" angle and it got turned on them almost from the start. Now there just grasping at straws that it was all the "Russians" doing!

Gonna be a great four years of entertainment at this rate

The DNC's strategy was to get Trump nominated and to get the media to elevate him. It's hilarious how badly it backfired.

They obviously forgot the ending of the pied piper story.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

If he believes it why does he keep putting "intelligence" on twitter? He has never come out and said anything definite, even after the briefing at the press conference he said it looks like it was Russia, he didn't say it was. In other words, he wasn't shown conclusive proof it was Russia.

This tweet doesn't sound like a man who believes what he's is being told.

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

Why did he say he thought it was Russia?
Why has he not been clear about his beliefs about it?
Why is he absolutely certain it wasn't Russia?
What is he not telling absolutely anyone given his own cabinet think it was Russia?
What is his special source of information?
Why does he put quotation marks around intellegence instead of just stating what he thinks?
Why does he hide behind sly hints and jabs?

Simply put he has a game to play. That involves discrediting the IC as much as he can. He has not said clearly that he still disputes the Russian hack. Given his record on twitter that could easily be a typo as he was not talking about the hack.

Edit: He went on a complete switch building up with the allegations from the memo that the IC were very clear was not sustantiated and switched to the hack so a typo is the best possible interpretation for him. At worst he is trying to sully the report on the Russian hack with the ex MI6 agent's memo which is incredibly dishonest.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

Why did he say he thought it was Russia?
Why has he not been clear about his beliefs about it?
Why is he absolutely certain it wasn't Russia?
What is he not telling absolutely anyone given his own cabinet think it was Russia?
What is his special source of information?
Why does he put quotation marks around intellegence instead of just stating what he thinks?
Why does he hide behind sly hints and jabs?

Simply put he has a game to play. That involves discrediting the IC as much as he can. He has not said clearly that he still disputes the Russian hack. Given his record on twitter that could easily be a typo as he was not talking about the hack.

To all your questions the answer is Politics.

He cannot come out straight and say the intelligence agencies are lying/have no proof. He did imply strongly he thinks the IA leaked the dossier to the media.

All we can go on as people outside the loop is evidence, and the two reports released by the intelligence agencies contains none of it.

Let me ask you, do you believe Julian Assange is a Russian agent?

Sand

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Are we including the 12 million illegal aliens?

People need to get over the fact he won in all honesty. It grows more pathetic by the day.

No, just the legitimate American voters. People need to get over the fact that more Americans voted for Clinton than Trump.

Sand

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The DNC's strategy was to get Trump nominated and to get the media to elevate him. It's hilarious how badly it backfired.

Did you get that from 4chan?

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

To all your questions the answer is Politics.

He cannot come out straight and say the intelligence agencies are lying/have no proof. He did imply strongly he thinks the IA leaked the dossier to the media.

All we can go on as people outside the loop is evidence, and the two reports released by the intelligence agencies contains none of it.

Let me ask you, do you believe Julian Assange is a Russian agent?

Basically anything you don't like is politics and not Trump making stuff up?

He seems absolutely certain Russia did not do it. How come? That also requires proof.

What does Assange have to do with whether or not Russia hacked the dnc?

Hank Scorpio

Sand wrote: »

Did you get that from 4chan?

No, from John Podestas emails.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120

In the attachment.

Sand

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

No, from John Podestas emails.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120

In the attachment.

Oh, the unverified emails presented by Russian backed hackers to Wikileaks? So fake news 24 hours ago.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

Basically anything you don't like is politics and not Trump making stuff up?

He seems absolutely certain Russia did not do it. How come? That also requires proof.

What does Assange have to do with whether or not Russia hacked the dnc?

Because this whole narrative the media is spinning is "Russia hacked the election", not Russia hacked the DNC solely.

The Intelligence agencies said Putin himself was directly involved in coordinating the email releases, which in turn means Julian Assange is a Russian agent.

Hank Scorpio

Sand wrote: »

Oh, the unverified emails presented by Russian backed hackers to Wikileaks? So fake news 24 hours ago.

Did you read the intelligence report the US Government released a week or two ago on Russia?

They said none of the emails were fake.

Do you not believe the US Government intelligence agencies?

Little CuChulainn

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Because this whole narrative the media is spinning is "Russia hacked the election", not Russia hacked the DNC solely.

The Intelligence agencies said Putin himself was directly involved in coordinating the email releases, which in turn means Julian Assange is a Russian agent.

The narrative is not that Russia hacked the election, it's that they used the hacking to influence the election.

Sand

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Did you read the intelligence report the US Government released a week or two ago on Russia?

They said none of the emails were fake.

Do you not believe the US Government intelligence agencies?

They said the Russians hacked the DNC and the RNC. They didn't say that every email and every rumour was true. The Russian intelligence services filtered those hacks to find and "enrich" the emails that would assist their asset Donald Trump before they were passed to Wikileaks. Thats why RNC emails are not released. Yet anyway.

But you're so edgy and cool, you trust random people on the internet to tell the truth when everyone else is dishonest. We're all just asleep.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Because this whole narrative the media is spinning is "Russia hacked the election", not Russia hacked the DNC solely.

The Intelligence agencies said Putin himself was directly involved in coordinating the email releases, which in turn means Julian Assange is a Russian agent.

It hasn't. Trump says it was their most recent narrative to move goal posts so he can argue against it. Have you not considered the anti IC statements he makes could be the "politics".

The IC have been very clear that Putin attempted to influence the election but they can't exactly show anything about if it affected people's votes. They seem to leaning towards no on that front.

It could easily have been passed through to Assange without him knowing the original source. I mean it sure suggests it but I feel it unfair to the man to be too certain on it.

Trump promised proof in 90 days, it is an odd promise and has to be a lie, how can he guarantee the result 90 days in advance?. This was absolutely a delaying tactic. It will likely work unfortunately though. Remember this is a man who spend tweets arguing with absolute certainty that white is black. He already declared he would supply evidence of Russian non involvement a week ago which has been forgotten. He has a track record for lying in this situation.

Hank Scorpio

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The narrative is not that Russia hacked the election, it's that they used the hacking to influence the election.

Not what the media were saying.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/29/russia-election-hack-obama-response-commentary.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/12/politics/mike-pompeo-cia-director-hearing-donald-trump/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-cia-pick-warns-world-gaining-us/story?id=44733782

http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161217110439-inside-the-russian-hack-on-us-election-00034024-full-169.jpg

https://s30.postimg.org/6i8g39c0x/12344.png