El Presidente Trump

ebbsy · 13-12-2016 10:58AM

Hillary,Killary,Jillary,Billary.

All interchangeable.

Hande hoche! · 13-12-2016 11:00AM

See that the Wisconsin recount has given Trump more votes. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/12/wisconsin-recount-donald-trump-161213045408092.html

Christy42 · 13-12-2016 11:24AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/12/schumer-on-congressional-probe-of-russia-i-dont-want-this-to-turn-into-a-benghazi-investigation/?utm_term=.6e791a9b575e

The good news for Trump supporters is that an investigation will finally show whst has happened. As they have said more information in the public domain is not a bad thing which is what this should find and they are very very enthusiastic about pointing out that nothing has been proven yet even when everyone acknowledges this. This investigation will hopefully put an end to the nothing proven thing one way or another.

mattser · 13-12-2016 12:04PM

ebbsy wrote: »

Hillary,Killary,Jillary,Billary.

All interchangeable.

oik · 13-12-2016 12:05PM

HellSquirrel wrote: »

You miss though that it wan't Clinton that called for it. It very definitely wasn't Clinton. Now, there will definitely be people that will assume she used her apparently endless secret powers to coerce Stein into calling for it (I assume she'd have had her murdered like her other 47 victims and 200 child slaves or whatever the latest is if Stein had refused :P), but there's neither proof nor evidence that way (currently). In fact, it put the Clinton campaign into a bit of a bind.

It wasn't just three - I gave a list of them on a previous page, and I think it was five in all. One was called by a candidate whose name was probably not known outside his home state (and only be a few within it!); I think he got 1%. The other was by a couple of voters. All of them, Stein included, did only what they had the right to do (possibly bar Pennsylvania, since that's been called off). Mind you, even in Pennsylvania, they had the right to request it, but if certain conditions aren't met it can and will be turned down.

It is also not a surprise that those states were chosen. They were all -somewhat- narrow in margin, they all had some sort of documented issues with machines and most importantly, because they were swing states, they were most likely to be targeted. And while this is a controversial thing to say of course, there may have been the consideration that the Russians were involved, as the suspicion has been for quite some time, although the recount was called before conclusive evidence was produced, and since they were clearly pro-Trump, it was -more likely- that interference was for his benefit than Clinton's. Of course, to say this openly would be dangerous as the trouble-makers would twist it into all sorts of deviousness. Not that they need an excuse. Truth is optional as well, unfortunately.*

It was, in fact, transparent as you say, although I suspect you intended opaque or similar considering the rest of the sentence. Stein made no secret of what she was doing. The White House made no secret of rather wishing she wouldn't, but granting she had the democratic right of it. The Clinton campaign stayed very quiet and, I believe, didn't really lend any support until it became absolutely apparent that it was going ahead and at that point, got involved because they might as well.

Now, there is some supposition in the last paragraph, since I can't divine the inner thoughts of any of these people. But the first part is verifiable and was what was being reported at the time. Therefore, it looks like you're rewriting history by insinuating that Clinton was deliberately choosing swing states to call for a recount because she couldn't bear to concede. All evidence points in a different direction. And if that's what you're doing - you're better than that.

Oh, get over yourself already. You are so busy gloating that you are absolutely blind to anything you don't want to see. You're even so busy gloating that you don't appear to notice that no-one's wailing or crying or gnashing their teeth and I think it actually offends you. It's not nearly as satisfying to mock people -attempting- to have a normal conversation as it would be to mock their being upset or whatever ridiculous thing it is that you want. It was also already repetitive some forty pages ago.

*That's not a personal dig, I feel our conversations have been reasonable, but there are some absolute hardnoses who can't bear any sort of contention. Actually, example right above.

When someone like Jill Stein demands a recount she KNOWs won't change anything and raises millions of dollars from desperate straw clutchers the proper response is ridicule. If you can't handle that... Well

oik · 13-12-2016 12:08PM

Christy42 wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/12/schumer-on-congressional-probe-of-russia-i-dont-want-this-to-turn-into-a-benghazi-investigation/?utm_term=.6e791a9b575e

The good news for Trump supporters is that an investigation will finally show whst has happened. As they have said more information in the public domain is not a bad thing which is what this should find and they are very very enthusiastic about pointing out that nothing has been proven yet even when everyone acknowledges this. This investigation will hopefully put an end to the nothing proven thing one way or another.

Just an attempt to poison the well. They won't find anything meaningful but they will make a finding that Putin may have had some miniscule impact and Trumps opponents will use that to write a version of history where Trump was a Russian plant. They have all the academics and media in place to make it happen.

About them libel laws...

Jelle1880 · 13-12-2016 12:18PM

So it seems that he has postponed his announcement on how he will avoid any conflicts of interest. No doubt he'll used his tried tactic of ignoring it until he thinks it will go away.

He has zero respect for the office of the President.

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 12:40PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So it seems that he has postponed his announcement on how he will avoid any conflicts of interest. No doubt he'll used his tried tactic of ignoring it until he thinks it will go away.

He has zero respect for the office of the President.

You mean his Business? He posted about it on twitter earlier.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/808528428123254785

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/808529888630239232

I'd do the same thing, with all the shady stuff going on he'd be a fool not to wait until the Electoral votes are confirmed.

Jelle1880 · 13-12-2016 12:46PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

You mean his Business? He posted about it on twitter earlier.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/808528428123254785

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/808529888630239232

I'd do the same thing, with all the shady stuff going on he'd be a fool not to wait until the Electoral votes are confirmed.

Too bad twitter is not an official channel. I mean, I get why he doesn't want to have to explain his plans to the electoral college, it might get messy.

The fact he is openly saying his children will run his companies is such a massive conflict of interest it isn't even funny anymore. And we're supposed to believe he won't interfere or dictate certain policies with that in mind ? He's already had them sit in on calls with foreign dignitaries ffs. Not to mention that he claims he has no time, but he can of course spend days going on a multiple state circle-jerk tour.

edit: Of course this might have to do with it...
https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/808474863820296192

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 12:53PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

You really think that him claiming he will do something on twitter is enough ?

The fact he is openly saying his children will run his companies is such a massive conflict of interest it isn't even funny anymore. And I know that the president is technically not subject to the same laws about conflicts of interest as other government officials, the fact he so openly flaunts common practice is a joke.

What else is he supposed to do until he's certain he's in the white house. There's games still being played post election.

About his Children, I don't know. Trump is old and giving his Children what he built up isn't unreasonable. I agree there might be a conflict of interest but he's free to do as he chooses. I don't think it will have much impact on anything and if it did, it would become transparent very quickly.

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 12:59PM

If there's something bad with proof about his Business conflicts it should be known of course @ the tweet. The next 27 days or whatever it is are going to be a wild ride.

About the electoral college, if they change the vote there will be Civil war, I'd bet my life on it.

Jelle1880 · 13-12-2016 01:01PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What else is he supposed to do until he's certain he's in the white house. There's games still being played post election.

About his Children, I don't know. Trump is old and giving his Children what he built up isn't unreasonable. I agree there might be a conflict of interest but he's free to do as he chooses. I don't think it will have much impact on anything and if it did, it would become transparent very quickly.

I don't get how you seem to think it's acceptable for him to not be transparent until he is in office. After that time surely it doesn't really matter anymore ?

He's not really free to do as he chooses either. If he doesn't put his companies in a blind trust away from the influence of his kids and himself then he is showing the country that he values his businesses more than the country. He can then also not be trusted to act in the best interest of the country, as his business will always be in the back of his mind.

I mean... It wouldn't be a surprise, but it's not exactly the right message you want to send as president.

This will go the same way as his tax returns. Keep postponing and lying about it in the hope people will forget.

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 01:08PM

He just did a long program interview with Fox a couple of days ago, which was surprisingly very hard hitting. He owes most of the MSM nothing given the collusion and bias.

The tax returns he's said he has used loopholes in the law to avoid most of it, which most large Businesses probably do. Sure it will look bad now but I don't blame him, I'd do the same thing.

Can't say much about how his Business will create potential problems, maybe the Newstalk story will enlighten me.

13-12-2016 01:21PM

Are any of his businesses sensitive?

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 01:42PM

Apparently the Newsweek thing is a story about a guy who helped Trump build a tower in Turkey and his company. The guy got arrested and Newsweek claim Turkey can use that as leverage to get a Turkish Cleric extradited if they cut off the money he's making from it.

Not really a bombshell as it jumps to conclusions but in hindsight he should dump his company asap because the media are going to hammer him now and there is an obvious possible conflict. I don't think he will though.

B0jangles · 13-12-2016 01:52PM

I respect the effort you guys are doing with regard to challenging the attitudes of the pro-Trumpists on Boards, but I think its about as likely to work as showing reputable scientific evidence to anti-vaxxers; they simply reject any evidence from any source that does not align with their existing beliefs.

This is not about politics anymore, this is a cult of personality.

As a bonus, here's a quote from Hannah Arendt from her book "The Origins of Totalitarianism" (1951)

Hannah Arendt wrote:

In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.”

Does this not sound chillingly familiar, especially the highlighted section? I for one have noticed multiple posters in this and other threads behaving in exactly this way.

MadYaker · 13-12-2016 01:54PM

He's doing the same thing he did with his tax returns and all the controversies he encountered during the campaign. Deflect and ignore the problem until it goes away, it's worked perfectly for him so far so I can see why he's doing it again. To say that his chldren will be running his businesses without any input from him at all is clearly a lie. Is he not going to talk to his children for the next 4 years??? Madness, although he'll probably get away with it.

Christy42 · 13-12-2016 01:56PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

He just did a long program interview with Fox a couple of days ago, which was surprisingly very hard hitting. He owes most of the MSM nothing given the collusion and bias.

The tax returns he's said he has used loopholes in the law to avoid most of it, which most large Businesses probably do. Sure it will look bad now but I don't blame him, I'd do the same thing.

Can't say much about how his Business will create potential problems, maybe the Newstalk story will enlighten me.

Why does he not release his tax returns now? We know he pays no tax so that will hardly be a shocker. Sur you could have predicted that when he gave out about Romney paying too little:p.

Hardly a big deal to release them now if that is all that is in it as we already know about it.
If.

InTheTrees · 13-12-2016 01:59PM

B0jangles wrote: »

This is not about politics anymore, this is a cult of personality.

We're stuck in a kind of limbo right now waiting for trump to actually become president. It'll get a lot more serious after janurary 19th.

He's pledged to abolish low income health coverage first, along with gutting old age pensions and health coverage. Thats going to go down really well.

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 02:06PM

B0jangles wrote: »

I respect the effort you guys are doing with regard to challenging the attitudes of the pro-Trumpists on Boards, but I think its about as likely to work as showing reputable scientific evidence to anti-vaxxers; they simply reject any evidence from any source that does not align with their existing beliefs.

This is not about politics anymore, this is a cult of personality.

As a bonus, here's a quote from Hannah Arendt from her book "The Origins of Totalitarianism" (1951)

Does this not sound chillingly familiar, especially the highlighted section? I for one have noticed multiple posters in this and other threads behaving in exactly this way.

Your post is just a belittlement of people, and I find it quite ignorant tbh. I could make a generalized post with a random quote and spin the same bottle, as in when given opposite viewpoints, often it boils down to insults of intellect by people on the left.

Hillary supporters campaign strongly for social rights, Hillary takes huge sums of money and gives speeches from places like Saudi Arabia, a place where gays are prosecuted and Women treated like dogs. That sounds like all kinds of crazy to me but it must be my low IQ kicking in.

Hillary supporters believe strongly in multiculturalism, she goes out and creates havoc in the middle east essentially creating terror groups the very people on the right don't want anywhere near their country. Ironic no?

Well I could go on, but I fear it would turn into more insults.

B0jangles · 13-12-2016 02:11PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Your post is just a belittlement of people, and I find it quite ignorant tbh. I could make a generalized post with a random quote and spin the same bottle, as in when given opposite viewpoints, often it boils down to insults of intellect by people on the left.

Hillary supporters campaign strongly for social rights, Hillary takes huge sums of money and gives speeches from places like Saudi Arabia, a place where gays are prosecuted and Women treated like dogs. That sounds like all kinds of crazy to me but it must be my low IQ kicking in.

Hillary supporters believe strongly in multiculturalism, she goes out and creates havoc in the middle east essentially creating terror groups the very people on the right don't want anywhere near their country. Ironic no?

Well I could go on, but I fear it would turn into more insults.

You think that's a random quote? It describes exactly the behaviour of multiple pro-Trump supporters I have encountered here an in many other places. She was analysing the rise of Nazism and Stalinism, but the parallels to Trumpism are undeniable.

I intended no insult, my comments were based on following the various discussions for the last 6 months; can you really deny that Trump supporters are willing to tie themselves in unbelievable knots to try to justify everything he does?

For example, you yourself have posted that Trump's admission that he likes to "grab them by the pussy" is just locker-room talk and unimportant, and nothing was proven while at the same time repeatedly bringing up the allegations against Bill Clinton. You can't have it both ways; either sexual assault matters or it doesn't, it doesn't stop being a crime just because it's your guy doing the assaulting.

InTheTrees · 13-12-2016 02:11PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Hillary supporters...
Hillary supporters...

Hillary? ha ha ha. The election's Over. Time to move on.

A Little Pony · 13-12-2016 02:20PM

ebbsy wrote: »

The Donald is running rings around everyone.

He is too quick for his opponents. I remember Newt Gingrich said during the primaries that Donald Trump would be like the militia during the American revolutionary war, attacking the British Army from all directions, using ambush tactics, using quick skirmish tactics.

Donald Trump is too quick for the media, say something to take attention off his last 'outrage', shift media focus, destroy Hillary to win the election and render the mainstream media useless against him but also using them to HELP him. The guy is very clever, a great general.

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 02:21PM

B0jangles wrote: »

You think that's a random quote? It describes exactly the behaviour of multiple pro-Trump supporters I have encountered here an in many other places. She was analysing the rise of Nazism and Stalinism, but the parallels to Trumpism are undeniable.

I intended no insult, my comments were based on following the various discussions for the last 6 months; can you really deny that Trump supporters are willing to tie themselves in unbelievable knots to try to justify everything he does?

For example, you yourself have posted that Trump's admission that he likes to "grab them by the pussy" is just locker-room talk and unimportant, and nothing was proven while at the same time repeatedly bringing up the allegations against Bill Clinton. You can't have it both ways; either sexual assault matters or it doesn't, it doesn't stop being a crime just because it's your guy doing the assaulting.

Do you think the majority of Clinton voters have any idea what wikileaks is, and if they do, do you think they've studied the releases? There's still posters on this board who refute there legitimacy, and many others when I've brought up points had no idea what I was talking about and simply logged out, I believe you're one of them.

The things I said about Bill Clinton's sexual scandals aren't allegations. He had affairs while married to Hillary which he admitted under oath and stuck cigars up Lewinski in the oval office. That is fact.

Skylinehead · 13-12-2016 02:23PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Hillary? ha ha ha. The election's Over. Time to move on.

That's it really. Does Clinton really have any supporters here? I never got that impression, just people that saw her as the lesser evil. Whereas with Trump, you definitely have multiple people that dogmatically cling to every word he says and won't admit that he's done any wrong at all. Cult of personality indeed.

B0jangles · 13-12-2016 02:24PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Do you think the majority of Clinton voters have any idea what wikileaks is, and if they do, do you think they've studied the releases? There's still posters on this board who refute there legitimacy.

The things I said about Bill Clinton aren't allegations. He had affairs while married to Hillary which he admitted under oath and stuck cigars up Lewinski in the oval office. That is fact.

Affairs aren't illegal, sexual assault is. Hope that clarifies things for you.

Wikileaks is an organization run by people, people with their own motivations and drivers. The way you guys talk about is like the way devout christians talk about the bible, like its the irrefutable word of god.

Finally, as other have already pointed out, the election is over, the Clintons are relegated to history. Time to stop using them to deflect criticism of Trump and actually address the already catastrophic number of issues with his upcoming Presidency.

looksee · 13-12-2016 02:29PM

Trump is letting his children manage his businesses, but 'no new deals' will be made while he is in office. Doesn't say much for his confidence in his children.

Billy86 · 13-12-2016 02:29PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

That's it really. Does Clinton really have any supporters here? I never got that impression, just people that saw her as the lesser evil. Whereas with Trump, you definitely have multiple people that dogmatically cling to every word he says and won't admit that he's done any wrong at all. Cult of personality indeed.

A lot has to do with messaging also, which is why hardly any Trump fans want to talk about expectations of his presidency until after he has acted, because they're well aware how it would look if they said they wanted to see lowered tax rates on the working/middle classes, or increased corporate taxes if he were to do the opposite. They're sitting and waiting to see what he does so they can try to label it as a positive (see: the poster who spent months painting Obama care as the worst thing ever and any benefits of it as "you can't put lipstick on a pig" only to immediately turn around and claim it had some wonderful benefits when Trump said he would be keeping parts of it).

There is also a large chunk that have yet to be told what the latest line to parrot without questioning is frome breitbart etc. as they themselves are also very aware of the first point. Once breitbart and Co begin moving toward commenting on Trumps presidency more, rather than trying to keep so much focus on other matters, you will see -pretty much to the day- the collective usual suspects on here follow along with them more or less word for word.

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 02:32PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Affairs aren't illegal, sexual assault is. Hope that clarifies things for you.

Wikileaks is an organization run by people, people with their own motivations and drivers. The way you guys talk about is like the way devout christians talk about the bible, like its the irrefutable word of god.

Where's the proof Trump sexually assaulted someone? Spin it whatever way you want, the world knows Clinton is a sexual fiend. Lewinsky knew to as she refers to him as "The creep" on the recorded calls.

Wikileaks is irrefutable. 7 DNC staffers and media personal were fired because of the leaks, and just because you're ignorant of available information, you shouldn't pretend it isn't.

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 02:39PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Hillary? ha ha ha. The election's Over. Time to move on.

It's not over.

Toodles

El Presidente Trump

Comments