El Presidente Trump

el diablo · 11-12-2016 02:57AM

ECO_Mental wrote: »

CIA now saying that the Russians definitely helped Trumpski in the GE with the hacking.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_russiahack-745p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.dc5c09491cc4

Also Trumpski is likely now to appoint the former head of Exxon as Sec of State. This guy has the Russian medal of freedom (or something similar) anyway massive Russian connections.

The evidence just keeps on coming..........

And why exactly should we believe what the CIA have to say?

Arcade_Tryer · 11-12-2016 03:13AM

el diablo wrote: »

And why exactly should we believe what the CIA have to say?

Jesus. :rolleyes:

el diablo · 11-12-2016 03:17AM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Jesus. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you could elaborate. Do the CIA have a long history of being virtuous and truthful?

Hank Scorpio · 11-12-2016 03:21AM

el diablo wrote: »

Perhaps you could elaborate. Do the CIA have a long history of being virtuous and truthful?

I agree. Skip to 6 minutes or so. House Intelligence committee ranking member Adam Schiff refuses to confirm anything and just beats around the bush. Wikileaks has Podesta emails dating back to 2007. He clicked a phishing link giving his password away, it could have been anyone.

From that Washington post article.

"For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said in a television interview that the “Russian government is not the source.” "

Jimmy Garlic · 11-12-2016 03:32AM

The Russians are remarkable people, extraordinary, omnipotent. Is there anything that they can't do? The Superbowl is coming up soon, I wonder if they will rig that.

Arcade_Tryer · 11-12-2016 03:35AM

el diablo wrote: »

Perhaps you could elaborate. Do the CIA have a long history of being virtuous and truthful?

Yes.

I really thought the conspiracy theories would end after the email "scandal". You're all still outraged over that as well, right?

Hank Scorpio · 11-12-2016 03:42AM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Yes.

I really thought the conspiracy theories would end after the email "scandal". You're all still outraged over that as well, right?

Short memory it seems.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/heres-the-full-version-of-the-cias-2002-intelligence-assessment-on-wmd-in-iraq-2015-3?r=US&IR=T

tomwaterford · 11-12-2016 04:38AM

el diablo wrote: »

Perhaps you could elaborate. Do the CIA have a long history of being virtuous and truthful?

Neither do politians??

oik · 11-12-2016 04:49AM

ECO_Mental wrote: »

WikiLeaks are only a hosting service for people who want to post stuff and want to stay anonymous. Assange doesn't give a **** if it's true or not so long as he gets his five minutes of fame. They do not do any back round checks validate sources etc.

WikiLeaks did not hack the DNC they were fed this info from the Russians (or who ever) so who knows that the info they were fed was 100% fact. Wikileaks did not check before they posted... If the russians went to the trouble of hacking sure out would be the simplest thing to make up or alter an email or two!

So no i do not trust everything that comes out of wikileaks

Wikileaks have been going for over a decade and have never published false information. Not a single document.

oik · 11-12-2016 04:56AM

The CIA is probably just spreading sh1t in order to spook Trump into giving them everything they want. There has always been a power struggle between the security services (the Deep State) and the executive and this is the case in the UK and France as well as other major democracies. They figure they can scare Trump by implying they have or could get info that could overturn his election.

el diablo · 11-12-2016 05:03AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

Neither do politians??

Not sure what you mean, Tom.

AllGunsBlazing · 11-12-2016 05:19AM

oik wrote: »

The CIA is probably just spreading sh1t in order to spook Trump into giving them everything they want. There has always been a power struggle between the security services (the Deep State) and the executive and this is the case in the UK and France as well as other major democracies. They figure they can scare Trump by implying they have or could get info that could overturn his election.

If the appointment of Rex Tillerson is anything to go by then the CIA are losing their touch when it comes to i̶n̶t̶i̶m̶i̶d̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ influence. Although Trump should probably avoid any open top motorcades for a while.....

ebbsy · 11-12-2016 08:18AM

el diablo wrote: »

ECO_Mental wrote: »

CIA now saying that the Russians definitely helped Trumpski in the GE with the hacking.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_russiahack-745p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.dc5c09491cc4

Also Trumpski is likely now to appoint the former head of Exxon as Sec of State. This guy has the Russian medal of freedom (or something similar) anyway massive Russian connections.

The evidence just keeps on coming..........

And why exactly should we believe what the CIA have to say?

+1

Wanderer78 · 11-12-2016 08:38AM

oik wrote:

The CIA is probably just spreading sh1t in order to spook Trump into giving them everything they want. There has always been a power struggle between the security services (the Deep State) and the executive and this is the case in the UK and France as well as other major democracies. They figure they can scare Trump by implying they have or could get info that could overturn his election.

And which planet are we talking about with their 'democracies', none of them round these parts!

Exxon Mobil aye! Clean up job nearly done!

11-12-2016 09:08AM

oik wrote: »

Wikileaks have been going for over a decade and have never published false information. Not a single document.

You're surely not saying that if information is channeled through wikileaks, it must be true, it cannot possibly be false?

11-12-2016 10:37AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You're surely not saying that if information is channeled through wikileaks, it must be true, it cannot possibly be false?

We're saying that up until now, there hasn't been anything false hosted on Wikileaks. That's a fact.

Professor Moriarty · 11-12-2016 10:47AM

el diablo wrote: »

Perhaps you could elaborate. Do the CIA have a long history of being virtuous and truthful?

It's a question of relativity. Do I trust the CIA? No. Do I trust the CIA more than a rich kid egotistical business failure or some rabid nutters' websites or randomers tweeting their brainfarts. Yes.

dudara · 11-12-2016 11:16AM

Deleted User wrote: »

We're saying that up until now, there hasn't been anything false hosted on Wikileaks. That's a fact.

How do we know that everything that has been posted on Wikileaks is true? I'm not trying to stir here, but I'm asking a genuine question. Do Wikileaks verify everything that is published? How do they authenticate the material?

It's great that a concept such as Wikileaks exists, but we can't place 100% trusting faith in it, or any organisation.

11-12-2016 11:18AM

Deleted User wrote: »

We're saying that up until now, there hasn't been anything false hosted on Wikileaks. That's a fact.

Could you please set out how is it a fact, preferably referring to findings by independent reviews.

I have no idea that it's a fact at all.

Flint Fredstone · 11-12-2016 11:34AM

dudara wrote: »

How do we know that everything that has been posted on Wikileaks is true? I'm not trying to stir here, but I'm asking a genuine question. Do Wikileaks verify everything that is published? How do they authenticate the material?

It's great that a concept such as Wikileaks exists, but we can't place 100% trusting faith in it, or any organisation.

We can't be 100% but Wikileaks would be destroyed if they released anything that could be proven factually incorrect.
Given the status of the individuals/organisations on the receiving end, if they can't prove anything factually incorrect, I'm going to go with it being truth.

Christy42 · 11-12-2016 12:10PM

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

We can't be 100% but Wikileaks would be destroyed if they released anything that could be proven factually incorrect.
Given the status of the individuals/organisations on the receiving end, if they can't prove anything factually incorrect, I'm going to go with it being truth.

They did lie about having a smoking gun on Clinton. Every week it was oh the next batch will contain the smoking gun we swear and yet nothing they released could see her in prison and she still won the popular vote. They lied repeatedly about having something serious on Clinton and we were forced to argue about the fact that she had a public and a private opinion. Nothing they hosted has been incorrect but they have released incorrect statements. Their denial of Russian involvement was a statement instead of something they hosted.

They are also selective on what they publish. Given how muxh has come about Trump through other means how did they not manage to find any of it. I mean the shaky deal with Chinese business men, the lack of paying taxes, the access Hollywood tape. They somehow managed nothing while launching a crusade to bring down Clinton.

Finally Trump's team is dismissing the Russian claim on the basis that these people said there was wmds. Nothing on we feel their evidence is wrong. Just we don't like what they have to say so we don't believe them.

GreenFolder2 · 11-12-2016 12:28PM

I'd love to know why so many Irish posters seem to be Trump fans. If he does implement his taxation reforms it's quite possible that Ireland stream of inward investors will dry up.

Also add the European Commission pursuing Irish tax issues through stretching competition law and inadvertently lining us up to be Trump's whipping boy if he starts going after companies avoiding US tax, and we have a huge problem on the horizon.

My concern is Ireland might get stuck with Trump pulling the rug out from under US multinationals on one side and the EU and British Government not really caring what our view on Brexit is and going for the hard option, doing disproportionate collateral damage here.

We've notions of benefiting from Brexit but it remains to be seen.

I just think you'd be a fool to be celebrating Trump's win when your livelihood depends on the status quo of open trading global economics and Ireland's ability to attract business with tax incentives.

If barriers to trade fly back up in the big countries, we're in big trouble.

Wanderer78 · 11-12-2016 12:30PM

GreenFolder2 wrote:

My concern is Ireland might get stuck with Trump pulling the rug out from under US multinationals on one side and the EU and British Government not really caring what our view on Brexit is and going for the hard option, doing disproportionate collateral damage here.

I think David McWilliams might just have the solution to our cooperate tax conundrum

Berserker · 11-12-2016 12:52PM

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

I'd love to know why so many Irish posters seem to be Trump fans. If he does implement his taxation reforms it's quite possible that Ireland stream of inward investors will dry up.

If barriers to trade fly back up in the big countries, we're in big trouble.

The multinationals will still need to have a base in Europe, so they would stay here, I think. They will probably enter into a maintenance phase and we will not see any new investment. Brexit or worst of all Scottish Independence, through which Scotland managed to gain EU membership, would be far more damaging. Far too many Irish posters are lapping up the big, bad Trump image, that the media here are promoting. Wouldn't be overly worried about him. His is interested in protecting and developing the USA, as opposed to screwing over the likes of the RoI.

GreenFolder2 · 11-12-2016 12:57PM

They might need an EU HQ but they wont necessarily need to route much taxable income through it.

We'd find our GDP crashing back to reality very quickly and that would put our debt: gdp ratio into dangerous territory.

Scottish independence isn't as likely. When push comes to shove divorcing Scotland and England makes Brexit seem like a piece of cake. It's politically a big deal but practically, it's not very straight forward and England is likely to attempt to off load the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS (both of which make Anglo look like small change) and a % of UK national debt. Cutting Scotland off from the much bigger English market with which is 100% integrated isn't very likely to be painless. Also it would be looking at a hard border if the remainder of the UK leaves the customs union.

It's far from the simple matter of just declaring Scottish independence. It's also not as simple as the last Scottish referendum as at that time, both countries could have coexisted in the EU and been independently governed but had an integrated economy. That's not possible post brexit. Scotland would have to pick EU or UK market access.

Bigger risk is some kind of fudge special status that gives Scotland or NI half in half out status. However, I can't really see the EU allowing that as it would undermine several actual members. It's not just Ireland implicated and our sentimentality about NI or Scotland mightn't be shared by say Belgium, which competes for similar industries.

Our immediate risk is US tax policy changes as they could happen very rapidly. Brexit could easily take a decade or more if it doesn't fizzle out and get forgotten about after a UK general election.

Other than diplomatic interaction, we've no ability to influence US tax policy. Whereas we do have an ability to influence EU UK relations and could even veto deals as they won't be subject to QMV voting.

ECO_Mental · 11-12-2016 01:04PM

This is disturbing

the blind faith Trumpski followers have is alarming. You all need to take a step back breathe relax and realise what ye are saying in order to defend this dude.

I was out last night so don't have the energy to go into detail but alright.

Lets do a simple exercise, lets Substitute the name Trump with Clinton.

Hey guys did you hear that the CIA are investigating Clinton because she was getting help from the KGB they hacked the GOP and released a load of private emails from her campaign staff, a load of crap really the CIA are a joke.

In other news Hillary is not dropping her involvement in her foundation she is calling all her old buddies and telling them you have a job now, and I hear Chelsea is going to be chief of staff and Bill sec of state. Oh and Michael Moore is going to be sec of defence. Oh did also hear that Hillary is charging the secret service for minding her, apparently they have to stay close and she has a house they can rent for cheap enough price.

Other wise she has being laying low not answering any questions, those bloody journalists keep asking questions about what she said on the campaign don't they realise what she said on the campaign has nothing to do what she really ment. That was the campaign she can say anything just so long as she got the votes. Who cares about promises.

ECO_Mental · 11-12-2016 01:23PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/09/first-100-days-can-trump-really-drain-swamp.html

This is hilarious did you hear that Hillary wants to clean up Washington"Drain the swamp" I hear. Anyway one thing she wants to do is not get foreign money for elections. Funny thing is the B**** actually in this election emailed foreign MPs for money for her own election. Can you believe it, the corruption of the Climtons

GreenFolder2 · 11-12-2016 01:34PM

Well I guess the only good that might come of it is a massive drive for reform in the US Federal electoral system generally in the coming years.

ebbsy · 11-12-2016 01:35PM

I find it is always easier to follow the winners. Last time I looked Trump and GOP were top of the pile, while the Democrats were a complete shambles.

You can't sink any lower than getting the Greens to seek recounts for ya (who then cant even get a recount in some states).

He doesn't need celebs or lying newspapers to win. He doesn't need to spend more than his opponents on negative advertising to win either.

Wanderer78 · 11-12-2016 01:37PM

ebbsy wrote: »

I find it is always easier to follow the winners. Last time I looked Trump and GOP were top of the pile, while the Democrats were a complete shambles.

You can't sink any lower than getting the Greens to seek recounts for ya (who then cant even get a recount in some states).

He doesn't need celebs or lying newspapers to win. He doesn't need to spend more than his opponents on negative advertising to win either.

he may have won, but it seems like everybody could be a loser at the end of this one

El Presidente Trump

Comments