El Presidente Trump

Jelle1880 · 01-12-2016 03:51PM

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Uh huh, it doesn't get much more mainstream than Reuters.
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN0MF2FQ20150319&ved=0ahUKEwiy4a21ntPQAhVhAsAKHRXoCdcQFghtMAg&usg=AFQjCNEkmcNnFWI5t46TcaG0qjEaTO8OcQ

(btw, is there a way to get rid of this "AMP" bull**** on search engine results? Or is the answer "new search engine"...)

That's also included in the snopers article if you'd look at it.

And the fact you have to change the subject from 'she sold 20% of the US' uranium to the Russians' to this shows you don't actually have anything to back up that initial claim

Trent Houseboat · 01-12-2016 03:52PM

Renegade Mechanic wrote:

Could be worse, Trump could have presided over the selling of 20% of U.S uranium production to the Russians
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24...m-company.html
You know, right before a kremlin banks donation of half a million to bill for his "great speech", or right after a spike in donations to their foundation from said Russians
What exactly was the thought process here?
'Make sure we've both got enough and we'll make an absolute KILLING, financing this one...'?

Ooh an unfounded allegation against Hillary. I really do hope she loses the election. Do you think after the election we can have a critical look at the winner whoever that may be?
What was it you said about derailment?

Renegade Mechanic wrote:

"Unproven"
Even Snopes can't call it "False"

Does Russell's teapot mean anything to you?
Or can you prove that aliens didn't sell all that uranium to Russia?

Renegade Mechanic · 01-12-2016 04:17PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

That's also included in the snopers article if you'd look at it.

And the fact you have to change the subject from 'she sold 20% of the US' uranium to the Russians' to this shows you don't actually have anything to back up that initial claim

I wonder when Schweizer - who literally admitted liability - will be buried in court...

What do you do for a living, Jelle? You probably make as much as me, less, more, ten times more, probably ten times more.. it doesn't matter. Neither of us is is within a lightyear of these people nor are we in a position to prove/disprove anything in relation to them, outside of pulling documents other people made and fighting forever over them, calling "false", "ties", "obligations" and "lies" ad infinitum.

I believe like you believe, that's what it boils down to. I'm a bit of a dickhead though, you're probably not. Reason for that mainly is seeing people for what they are and - and this is important - being proven right over and over again. If I could do that with the lotto numbers, I'd be sorted...

I see an arsehole with a god complex getting his fat arse behind the resolute desk and an absolutely lethal psychopath getting hers kicked out.

If I "knew" what the Clintons were doing, any more than you or anyone else here did, I'd either be very wealthy, or very dead. You don't believe that, I do.

May I have the next dance?

WinnyThePoo · 01-12-2016 04:27PM

So after the election will we be able to talk about Trump. I mean IF he becomes president elect, should be up for scrutiny.

Of course only after the election. When do the Americans vote again?

Renegade Mechanic · 01-12-2016 04:54PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

So after the election will we be able to talk about Trump. I mean IF he becomes president elect, should be up for scrutiny.

Of course only after the election. When do the Americans vote again?

Obama doesn't lose his pardoning powers until January 20th. Wether or not Trump gets them after is still down to how many of the Republican electorate are willing to take the punishment for voting against their mandates.

Trent Houseboat · 01-12-2016 05:09PM

How can the electorate have an mandate. Don't candidates put a set of policies before the electorate and let them decide on whether or not the become a mandate?

Also is the presidential pardon not an executive power? It can only be taken off him through impeachment, and that can't happen until he's sworn in.

What does any of that have to do with Winny? Do you intend comparing Donald and Hillary until he takes the oath? Seems pointless the race is run, you might as well be talking about Ted Crus for all the relevance it has.

Professor Moriarty · 01-12-2016 05:18PM

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

I wonder when Schweizer - who literally admitted liability - will be buried in court...

What do you do for a living, Jelle? You probably make as much as me, less, more, ten times more, probably ten times more.. it doesn't matter. Neither of us is is within a lightyear of these people nor are we in a position to prove/disprove anything in relation to them, outside of pulling documents other people made and fighting forever over them, calling "false", "ties", "obligations" and "lies" ad infinitum.

I believe like you believe, that's what it boils down to. I'm a bit of a dickhead though, you're probably not. Reason for that mainly is seeing people for what they are and - and this is important - being proven right over and over again. If I could do that with the lotto numbers, I'd be sorted...

I see an arsehole with a god complex getting his far arse behind the resolute desk and an absolutely lethal psychopath getting hers kicked out.

If I "knew" what the Clintons were doing, any more than you or anyone else here did, I'd either be very wealthy, or very dead. You don't believe that, I do.

May I have the next dance?

Not a lot to argue with there. One point of contention: Based on what I read, see and hear, my gobsh1te is less of a gobsh1te than your gobsh1te. And vice versa, no doubt.

Jelle1880 · 01-12-2016 05:50PM

https://twitter.com/JonathanMerritt/status/804310057424928768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

This is glorious to watch.

BoatMad · 01-12-2016 05:56PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/JonathanMerritt/status/804310057424928768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

This is glorious to watch.

remember its even worse when a former speaker of the houses starts up with " feelings over fact "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4f5ewIYYuQ

ebbsy · 01-12-2016 06:24PM

Controlled immigration is required in the world today. Look at the attacks in Germany at that festival, the Paris attacks etc. These people are a product that has been created by Obama and Clinton.

The right people are now in charge and hopefully we will get back to some sort of normality.

BoatMad · 01-12-2016 06:47PM

hese people are a product that has been created by Obama and Clinton.

The origins of the conflicts in the Middle , well pre-date Clinton or Obama,

buy hey we're in a post fact post truth world, you're right cause its on twitter

Renegade Mechanic · 01-12-2016 06:49PM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

How can the electorate have an mandate. Don't candidates put a set of policies before the electorate and let them decide on whether or not the become a mandate?

Mabye mandate is the wrong word, but each elector goes in with a "recommendation" from his or her segment. They're not actually bound by very strong laws to follow that recommendation.

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Also is the presidential pardon not an executive power? It can only be taken off him through impeachment, and that can't happen until he's sworn in.

That's why I was talking about Obama. The one still in power.

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

What does any of that have to do with Winny?

Er, Jaysus I dunno, maybe the fact that Winny asked the shagging question?

WinnyThePoo wrote:

When do the Americans vote again?

Technically they dont, the "college" is actually separate institutions across the States that convene and decide, but either way, it's "the next vote" and Obama hands over the wheel to who the college decides upon.

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Do you intend comparing Donald and Hillary until he takes the oath? Seems pointless the race is run, you might as well be talking about Ted Crus for all the relevance it has.

Donald ain't in until the Electoral college votes.
Call me crazy but "Never Trump", "Stop Donald", "I'd rather vote for Hillary", all Republican efforts against the chap, are far from their last tricks. I wouldn't be surprised if they had one or two more, why don't we wait and see?

Trent Houseboat · 01-12-2016 07:23PM

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Mabye mandate is the wrong word, but each elector goes in with a "recommendation" from his or her segment. They're not actually bound by very strong laws to follow that recommendation.

That's why I was talking about Obama. The one still in power.

Er, Jaysus I dunno, maybe the fact that Winny asked the shagging question?

Technically they dont, the "college" is actually separate institutions across the States that convene and decide, but either way, it's "the next vote" and Obama hands over the wheel to who the college decides upon.

Donald ain't in until the Electoral college votes.
Call me crazy but "Never Trump", "Stop Donald", "I'd rather vote for Hillary", all Republican efforts against the chap, are far from their last tricks. I wouldn't be surprised if they had one or two more, why don't we wait and see?

'pologies, I thought Whinny was sarcastically talking about the general election and why people seem to still be comparing the two candidates.

I think we can assume that the electoral college will do its job as instructed. Anything less would be an attack on the institutions of the Republic. It's not a perfect system but everyone knew the rules of the game at the outset and played accordingly. Donald won, to try to take that from him now would be a akin to a coup.

HellSquirrel · 01-12-2016 07:32PM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

I think we can assume that the electoral college will do its job as instructed. Anything less would be an attack on the institutions of the Republic. It's not a perfect system but everyone knew the rules of the game at the outset and played accordingly. Donald won, to try to take that from him now would be a akin to a coup.

Thing is, it wouldn't. This is actually one of the big reasons the Electoral College was set up - if the people voted in a lunatic, the Electoral College was supposed to be the last line of defence. Their purpose (apart from ensuring a balanced representation of the States) is to use their judgement as to whether the electorate's decision is the best one. Some states have reduced their scope now, ensuring that electors do vote in line with the results. Others haven't. Mind you, I think it would take one hell of a lot of guts to go faithless elector, even if you absolutely, stridently believe that to cast your vote with your state would be against American interests.

Now...I'm not actually all that gone on the idea of the faithless electors upturning everything. Honestly, I think it would lead to riots and would be a lot more damaging, at least in the short run. I think it would also basically delegitimise whoever got in instead (bear in mind that technically the electors can put in any name* - Sanders, Pence, Clinton, hell, probably Chelsea Clinton if they all went insane at the same time.) and it would do nothing for America's wounds currently.

*I would need to recheck that, but I believe that's the case.

WinnyThePoo · 01-12-2016 07:37PM

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Obama doesn't lose his pardoning powers until January 20th. Wether or not Trump gets them after is still down to how many of the Republican electorate are willing to take the punishment for voting against their mandates.

So wait....Trump is President elect?

The election against Clinton is over?

No more hiding behind Hillary?

Trent Houseboat · 01-12-2016 07:50PM

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Thing is, it wouldn't. This is actually one of the big reasons the Electoral College was set up - if the people voted in a lunatic, the Electoral College was supposed to be the last line of defence. Their purpose (apart from ensuring a balanced representation of the States) is to use their judgement as to whether the electorate's decision is the best one. Some states have reduced their scope now, ensuring that electors do vote in line with the results. Others haven't. Mind you, I think it would take one hell of a lot of guts to go faithless elector, even if you absolutely, stridently believe that to cast your vote with your state would be against American interests.

Now...I'm not actually all that gone on the idea of the faithless electors upturning everything. Honestly, I think it would lead to riots and would be a lot more damaging, at least in the short run. I think it would also basically delegitimise whoever got in instead (bear in mind that technically the electors can put in any name* - Sanders, Pence, Clinton, hell, probably Chelsea Clinton if they all went insane at the same time.) and it would do nothing for America's wounds currently.

*I would need to recheck that, but I believe that's the case.

Right, but it's not like people didn't know they were voting for a lying racist fraud. The only reason for the electoral college was if some thing came to light so close to the election that word would not have time to reach the electorate when information for a lot of people took months to reach people on horseback.

A Little Pony · 01-12-2016 07:56PM

Donald Trump the President of the United States, will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. I am shocked at the biased media still complaining about his tweets. The failing new york times needs to move on from the election.

WinnyThePoo · 01-12-2016 08:03PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Donald Trump the President of the United States, will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. I am shocked at the biased media still complaining about his tweets. The failing new york times needs to move on from the election.

How will he?

HellSquirrel · 01-12-2016 08:15PM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Right, but it's not like people didn't know they were voting for a lying racist fraud. The only reason for the electoral college was if some thing came to light so close to the election that word would not have time to reach the electorate when information for a lot of people took months to reach people on horseback.

While that explanation does make a lot of sense, the founding fathers did explain their reasoning. Sorry, the quote is a bit long, but it's all relevant;

James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/ (The whole thing is pretty interesting)

Unfortunately, within the framework of the Constitution, -this- is their really unpleasant duty if they feel it necessary. They are the 1% of electors who get faced with a question like this. In general, it's a formality - except when it isn't.

To reiterate, though, I don't think it should be overturned in that manner - it would do a lot more harm than good.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Donald Trump the President of the United States, will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. I am shocked at the biased media still complaining about his tweets. The failing new york times needs to move on from the election.

Well, that explains a lot.

Professor Moriarty · 01-12-2016 08:16PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

How will he?

He's gonna tweet the sh1t outta the commies.

Skommando · 01-12-2016 10:59PM

The vast majority of polls and media predictions in the west were completely and utterly wrong. This was not just an accident. They've been royally caught out doing what they shouldn't be doing and slanting poll results and coverage. I don't like Trump, but the election result says a lot about the bias and agenda of the western media, who think they can control ordinary people, like some tin pot dictators, by constantly slanting coverage. And judging by their hysterical pedantic coverage of tweets instead of policy, they haven't leaned much - that ordinary people can see through this slant for what it is.

Renegade Mechanic · 01-12-2016 11:02PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

So wait....Trump is President elect?

The election against Clinton is over?

No more hiding behind Hillary?

Who's hiding? I dislike some parts about him and like others. His sh*t stirring skills are just exquisite. Better yet, they're pointed in the right direction. At least for now. I liked nothing at all about Hillary.

Trent Houseboat · 01-12-2016 11:31PM

Can someone explain the genius behind Donald's plan with the Carrier plant in Indiana? Instead of taxing companies that are moving jobs he's bribing them to keep some of the jobs.

How is he not over a barrel now for every company now who can say they're moving unless they get a cut?

Some negotiator. No wonder he's failed at business so many times.

Christy42 · 01-12-2016 11:48PM

Skommando wrote: »

The vast majority of polls and media predictions in the west were completely and utterly wrong. This was not just an accident. They've been royally caught out doing what they shouldn't be doing and slanting poll results and coverage. I don't like Trump, but the election result says a lot about the bias and agenda of the western media, who think they can control ordinary people, like some tin pot dictators, by constantly slanting coverage. And judging by their hysterical pedantic coverage of tweets instead of policy, they haven't leaned much - that ordinary people can see through this slant for what it is.

Man with all that evidence you got there I have no idea how to come back from it. Curious why all these left wing polls were off in favour of Romney before 2012 (granted not enough for him to be winning in them but hey, a realistic national poll wouldn't have Trump ahead either:P)

Skommando · 02-12-2016 12:48AM

Christy42 wrote: »

Man with all that evidence you got there I have no idea how to come back from it. Curious why all these left wing polls were off in favour of Romney before 2012 (granted not enough for him to be winning in them but hey, a realistic national poll wouldn't have Trump ahead either:P)

Did you happen to miss the actually election result ? Still in denial ?
Sure you could always prove your pretend point by showing us all your evidence of how the vast majority of supposedly professional polls and media got their predictions about the election and the views of ordinary Americans correct.

oik · 02-12-2016 01:09AM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/JonathanMerritt/status/804310057424928768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

This is glorious to watch.

They'd had those same people on dozens of times. They're clearly not interested in getting a balanced view. They saw these people embodied all the stereotypes and stuck with them.

oik · 02-12-2016 01:18AM

BoatMad wrote: »

The origins of the conflicts in the Middle , well pre-date Clinton or Obama,

buy hey we're in a post fact post truth world, you're right cause its on twitter

Obama and Clinton destabilised Libya and syria clever clogs.

oik · 02-12-2016 01:24AM

BoatMad wrote: »

remember its even worse when a former speaker of the houses starts up with " feelings over fact "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4f5ewIYYuQ

If crime is down in rural and suburban America but up in cities then something which is factually correct is practically incorrect. If your cities are too dangerous it's a sign of internal decay that isn't captured by broad statistics. Good to see a speaker of the house with a nuanced view on the matter.

Professor Moriarty · 02-12-2016 01:33AM

oik wrote: »

If crime is down in rural and suburban America but up in cities then something which is factually correct is practically incorrect. If your cities are too dangerous it's a sign of internal decay that isn't captured by broad statistics. Good to see a speaker of the house with a nuanced view on the matter.

A nuanced Newt Gingrich is an oxymoron. Never let a feeling get in the way of a fact. Unless you're Newt.

"something which is factually correct is practically incorrect." Yes. Yes, of course.

But hey, Trump got elected because he's gonna bigly Make America Great Again. So it's all good.

oik · 02-12-2016 02:04AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A nuanced Newt Gingrich is an oxymoron. Never let a feeling get in the way of a fact. Unless you're Newt.

"something which is factually correct is practically incorrect." Yes. Yes, of course.

But hey, Trump got elected because he's gonna bigly Make America Great Again. So it's all good.

Already safe areas becoming safer is not progress.

El Presidente Trump

Comments