El Presidente Trump

B0jangles · 13-12-2016 04:00PM

OK, I think I'm done here.

This is completely pointless; arguing facts with a cadre of Trump Cultists and Wikileaks evangelicals is waste of time.

Trump will be president, his cabinet picks are frankly terrifying and you guys probably still be bleating on about the Clintons when Iran tweets that Trump's hands are too small to push the button and the nukes start to fly.

13-12-2016 04:02PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Quoting some site that spouts garbage isn't a good way to prove any point.

Remember when Hillary was being told what to do in Albania by George Soros?

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/28972

You probably don't, since the MSM didn't report it. But Trump is the one with baggage. :pac:

Any idiot can take something out of perspective, it doesn't make the documents themselves any less legit. The DNC and Podesta were released in sequential batches. They still have more.

That private citizen directly telling the State Department what to do is irrelevant because we didn't see Trump's emails. It's slanting the truth and is out of context. The public's perception has been altered by a lack of dirt on the other side.

Please remove this fake news. Reported.

13-12-2016 04:05PM

B0jangles wrote: »

OK, I think I'm done here.

This is completely pointless; arguing facts with a cadre of Trump Cultists and Wikileaks evangelicals is waste of time.

Trump will be president, his cabinet picks are frankly terrifying and you guys probably still be bleating on about the Clintons when Iran tweets that Trump's hands are too small to push the button and the nukes start to fly.

Just because I hate the lies being told on here and I hate that Wikileaks' credibility is questioned by people who have no understanding of it doesn't make me either of those things.

pumpkin4life · 13-12-2016 04:05PM

B0jangles wrote: »

OK, I think I'm done here.

This is completely pointless; arguing facts with a cadre of Trump Cultists and Wikileaks evangelicals is waste of time.

Trump will be president, his cabinet picks are frankly terrifying and you guys probably still be bleating on about the Clintons when Iran tweets that Trump's hands are too small to push the button and the nukes start to fly.

Spends whole thread talking about being rational.

Writes about nuclear annihilation with Iran.

Gonna be a fun four years alright.

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 04:07PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Um, yes?

Rational people change their minds when presented with new information; such a massive conflict of interest absolutely should be enough to cause you to drop your support.

Yes it's new information. There is also a mountain of old information ( which you seem oblivious to ) showing corruption on a world wide scale on the other side that far outweighs it, which in the long term would be far more damaging not only to the US, but everywhere in the world.

I've said I think it's a mistake, to expect me to drop all support is simply ludicrous.

Redhighking · 13-12-2016 04:09PM

B0jangles wrote: »

OK, I think I'm done here.

This is completely pointless; arguing facts with a cadre of Trump Cultists and Wikileaks evangelicals is waste of time.

Trump will be president, his cabinet picks are frankly terrifying and you guys probably still be bleating on about the Clintons when Iran tweets that Trump's hands are too small to push the button and the nukes start to fly.

it will be business as usual dont you worry

13-12-2016 04:11PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Spends whole thread talking about being rational.

Writes about nuclear annihilation with Iran.

Gonna be a fun four years alright.

The thing is, it'd be easy for them to win these arguments if they just stuck to the known facts about Trump.. Instead, it descends into hyperbole and dramatic tales of the world ending and it's just so easy to cut through the BS.

Trying to win an argument with talk of nuking Iran, or saying Wikileaks is unreliable, or saying he said only weak soldiers get PTSD, is pointless.

Jelle1880 · 13-12-2016 04:14PM

I wonder if Rick Perry will fire himself on his first day in office :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQX2lwKS3Pg

The answer is Department of Energy, Rick.

B0jangles · 13-12-2016 04:15PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Spends whole thread talking about being rational.

Writes about nuclear annihilation with Iran.

Gonna be a fun four years alright.

One last comment

a.) I was using a little hyperbole to make a point about how touchy and unstable trump is

b.) Trump's currently touted pick for deputy Secretary of State, John Bolton had this to say about Iran:

The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure. The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed. Rendering inoperable the Natanz and Fordow uranium-enrichment installations and the Arak heavy-water production facility and reactor would be priorities. So, too, would be the little-noticed but critical uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan. An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/opinion/to-stop-irans-bomb-bomb-iran.html

Everything is Fine.

Everything is Normal.

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 04:16PM

Debates generally end when the Wikileaks credibility line starts to get thrown around. It truly is a beautiful thing what Assange and others have given the world.

Jelle1880 · 13-12-2016 04:27PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Debates generally end when the Wikileaks credibility line starts to get thrown around. It truly is a beautiful thing what Assange and others have given the world.

Are we simply going to ignore the credible doubts people have about Assange's bias ? Not Wikileaks as a whole, but he definitely seems to have changed his stance from providing information to everyone to selectively releasing information in order to further an agenda.

The fact you still put Assange on a pedestal that is apparently exempt from criticism is just plain weird.

You only have to look at what happened after the failed 'coup' in Turkey to show that it's not all great stuff when it concerns Wikileaks.

InTheTrees · 13-12-2016 04:33PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Wikileaks has never released a false document, spin it whatever way you want. It's a fact.

What an odd assertion. You couldn't possibly know that.

Trent Houseboat · 13-12-2016 04:38PM

Deleted User wrote:

The thing is, it'd be easy for them to win these arguments if they just stuck to the known facts about Trump.. Instead, it descends into hyperbole and dramatic tales of the world ending and it's just so easy to cut through the BS.

Trying to win an argument with talk of nuking Iran, or saying Wikileaks is unreliable, or saying he said only weak soldiers get PTSD, is pointless.

Did you just say that you know that you're wrong or that you have some unknown facts that make Trump a good choice for President, but haven't told anyone?

The known facts about Trump are that he's a liar, a fraud and a failure. Have I won?

Imagine joking about Iran and a notorious narcissist when people were convinced that Killary would literally start world war three. Literally convinced.

Hank Scorpio · 13-12-2016 04:43PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Are we simply going to ignore the credible doubts people have about Assange's bias ? Not Wikileaks as a whole, but he definitely seems to have changed his stance from providing information to everyone to selectively releasing information in order to further an agenda.

The fact you still put Assange on a pedestal that is apparently exempt from criticism is just plain weird.

You only have to look at what happened after the failed 'coup' in Turkey to show that it's not all great stuff when it concerns Wikileaks.

My disdain is when people even subtly hint the emails may be discredited or manipulated, in most cases the person saying it hasn't researched the releases at all. It's very infuriating.

Your other points are fair, I would say when people like Assange and Snowden risk and give up their lives to do what they've done, they deserve the highest praise possible.

InTheTrees · 13-12-2016 04:50PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Just because I hate the lies being told on here and I hate that Wikileaks' credibility is questioned by people who have no understanding of it doesn't make me either of those things.

Of course WikiLeaks credibility (in the usa anyway) has taken a massive hit from this election.
I would certainly treat anything they "leak" with a huge amount of scepticism.

InTheTrees · 13-12-2016 04:58PM

B0jangles wrote:

b.) Trump's currently touted pick for deputy Secretary of State, John Bolton had this to say about Iran:

An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.

.

Iran is a major supplier to China. Its feel like trump is really going to be putting pressure on the Chinese.

Interesting times ahead.

ebbsy · 13-12-2016 05:00PM

B0jangles wrote: »

OK, I think I'm done here.

This is completely pointless; arguing facts with a cadre of Trump Cultists and Wikileaks evangelicals is waste of time.

Trump will be president, his cabinet picks are frankly terrifying and you guys probably still be bleating on about the Clintons when Iran tweets that Trump's hands are too small to push the button and the nukes start to fly.

Why d'on't you join the #Trumptrain ?

Its easier bud.

Join us.

13-12-2016 05:05PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Of course WikiLeaks credibility (in the usa anyway) has taken a massive hit from this election.
I would certainly treat anything they "leak" with a huge amount of scepticism.

Yeah, their goals should be questioned. But the goals are irrelevant.. They don't hack anything and if it looks like they're not going to publish stuff against their agenda, whistleblowers will know to leak it elsewhere.

If you're saying we should be skeptical of the actual content of the emails, then you're wrong.

InTheTrees · 13-12-2016 05:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

If you're saying we should be skeptical of the actual content of the emails, then you're wrong.

Well there is major scepticism over the content.

WikiLeaks has an agenda.

Billy86 · 13-12-2016 05:55PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Iran is a major supplier to China. Its feel like trump is really going to be putting pressure on the Chinese.

Interesting times ahead.

His continued angling for war continues.

ECO_Mental · 13-12-2016 06:02PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Debates generally end when the Wikileaks credibility line starts to get thrown around. It truly is a beautiful thing what Assange and others have given the world.

Yeah its a beautiful thing alright that you might be a lot unsafer from terrorist attack alright because of Assanage.

This is a big boys game Hank, where security agencies cannot now use certain techniques to monitor suspected terrorist putting YOU at and me risk. But what the hell Assanage got his 5 mins of fame he cares so much about you and me.

B_Wayne · 13-12-2016 06:14PM

Wikileaks have shown themselves to be unethical, particularly in the last 12 months. Their Turkish and Saudi leaks only served to endanger individuals. And Assange is dodgy to say the least.

Arturo Bandini · 13-12-2016 06:52PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

Wikileaks have shown themselves to be unethical, particularly in the last 12 months. Their Turkish and Saudi leaks only served to endanger individuals. And Assange is dodgy to say the least.

Exactly. It's just a coincidence that their credibility comes into question after going after the Democrats.

B_Wayne · 13-12-2016 07:02PM

Arturo Bandini wrote: »

Exactly. It's just a coincidence that their credibility comes into question after going after the Democrats.

http://www.advocate.com/media/2016/8/23/wikileaks-outs-saudi-gay-man-rape-victims-and-more

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeynep-tufekci/wikileaks-erdogan-emails_b_11158792.html

It is a coincidence, Wikileaks have been facing criticism for years for general irresponsibility however I would say that the Turkish and Saudi leaks were the particular standout for me. The Podesta leaks I found to be boring more than anything else.

HellSquirrel · 13-12-2016 07:07PM

Arturo Bandini wrote: »

Exactly. It's just a coincidence that their credibility comes into question after going after the Democrats.

Not quite. They had already come under fire for some of their releases which were feared to endanger operatives. But there wasn't anything (as far as I'm aware) to suggest that Wikileaks might have a partisan line going.

It's no co-incidence that their credibility is coming into really serious question now - it's a direct response to some fairly unethical dubiousness in publishing very selected materials, perhaps with reason to believe that they came from an enemy of the US* (and even if they didn't have reason to, it's coming out now that that is exactly where they came from.) and then Wikileaks itself (via Assange) backed it up with untruthful muckstirring that the Big Release that would Discredit Clinton Forever was coming out Any Time Now Rly.

This is actually pretty clear-cut. It's ...really kinda sad and says a lot for the times we're in that this is controversial in any way. How on earth can any of you support foreign interference in an/your election, for heaven's sake? I do not get how people are tolerating this for a moment. Is your hate for "the left" really so great that you will condone any action so long as it appears to do more harm to "leftists" or "democrats"? It's not. It's doing just as much harm to Republicans and people with more right-wing views. And that some of you are too blind to see anything more than "lefties are mad, lol" is just...rather depressing.

I get that no-one approves of the Democrats being assish - hell, I don't either. But this isn't a case of the ends justify the means, this is actual dangerous bull**** and some people are just gulping it down.

*Seriously. Whatever you think about Trump, don't make the mistake of thinking that Russia is America's friend. It isn't. Russia doesn't give two flying fcuks about the good of the US and there's no reason why they should. America's been used like a damp tissue.

Igotadose · 13-12-2016 07:11PM

Arturo Bandini wrote: »

Exactly. It's just a coincidence that their credibility comes into question after going after the Democrats.

Wait. I thought it was impartial - just publishing the information without judgement or selection; not 'going after' at all. Please clarify.

Also, had they had similar information on the Teapublicans, well, we should've seen that, too. Funny if it comes out next year.

A Little Pony · 13-12-2016 07:18PM

MadYaker wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you'll find that there isn't much a of cult of personality here.

Trump supporters constantly spew out stuff like this but yeah there's definitely no personality cult here, no sir!

A Little Pony wrote: »

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.

And that's just on boards, go read r/TheDonald if you want to see the worst of it.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a disdain for Clinton and for me, a complete and utter lack of caring for the American populace after seeing how Hillary's supporters reacted to proven complaints of how the Primary went down. Her supporters, Trump's and everyone who didn't vote deserve whatever fuk ups he brings.

And I really don't care about the world stage with Trump in it. While some things have gone up in America under Obama, everything else in the world continues to shatter and fall apart. Just look at what their foreign policy is doing to Europe.

Tensions have been rising with Russia and China for years but an allegation that Russia hacked the DNC (a lot of people think they actually hacked voting machines) and a phone call from Taiwan seem to be the end of good times between the superpowers. Apparently, everything was fine until Trump won.

Today, I've started seeing Russia being blamed for causing Brexit and movements like BLM elsewhere online and that is sure to spread to boards over the coming days. It's all overblown crap and it's dangerous. The hard-core left it seems would rather war with Russia than accept that Trump won because Hillary was an awful candidate across most of America. The cheek of it. There is literally a video of Hillary talking about rigging elections in Palestine, there's proof that her own primary was a complete farce, but none of that sort of thing was remotely possible until she lost the big one. I won't apologize for enjoying the meltdown.

No sure how the rest of this rant is relevant to the thread. Everyone (apart from the Green Party morons) has accepted that Trump has won. The US has been toppling governments and rigging elections since Hillary was in nappies. Saying the primary was a farce is a bit much, it wasn't really and it's no more of a farce than the donald being elected president after losing the popular vote by over 2,000,000 votes. You're dead right she was a terrible candidate, probably the worst dem candidate since that guy who ran against Reagan and lost by a landslide, can't remember his name.

Your woman got whipped, simple as that. Trump was just too good for her. The election speaks for me, it isn't an opinion.

HellSquirrel · 13-12-2016 07:28PM

oik wrote: »

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

It's not about changing the results. This is a part of the democratic process, whether or not you think it should be.

No-one expected the results to change, and if you think they did...well, ridicule may be the best option there too.

pedigree 6 · 13-12-2016 07:48PM

The USA and Russia are going to be best mates now.

World peace ensues. Wohoo.:P

MadYaker · 13-12-2016 07:53PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Your woman got whipped, simple as that. Trump was just too good for her. The election speaks for me, it isn't an opinion.

I'm not a Hillary supporter :pac: she was a terrible candidate did you even read my post?

El Presidente Trump

Comments