El Presidente Trump

A Little Pony · 15-12-2016 12:04AM

rossie1977 wrote: »

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

If the electors did flip, or they found another way to take the election from Trump, what do people think would be the consequences on a social level?

I have no doubt it would end up in civil war.

Nobody cares enough about trump to go to war for him

The red states aside from the likes of texas and one or two others are completely dependant on the money the big blue states pour into the government coffers each year so yeah unless they want to be completely cut off in the deep south and mid-west there would be no civil war

The South was once its own country, it could do it again.

Trent Houseboat · 15-12-2016 12:07AM

A Little Pony wrote: »

It probably did happen, that is the difference between me and you. I am not naive to just think it can't happen.

It probably didn't.

I never said it couldn't, I said there was nothing to suggest it did. You have offered no evidence to the contrary.
If there was evidence I'd change my mind. I don't have a religious devotion to anyone involved. That is the difference between you and me.

KingBrian2 · 15-12-2016 12:20AM

Oafley Jones wrote: »

I genuinely can't understand why people waste their time with people whom can be best described as "having a want about them". Seriously, they're just a distraction and take away from an interesting topic. Recognise that there's no intelligence entry requirement for the net and move on.

Some people are argumentative types.

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 12:21AM

rossie1977 wrote: »

Nobody cares enough about trump to go to war for him

The red states aside from the likes of texas and one or two others are completely dependant on the money the big blue states pour into the government coffers each year so yeah unless they want to be completely cut off in the deep south and mid-west there would be no civil war

I think you're wrong, there's been a precedent set throughout the election of the people vs the establishment, and true or not, the majority of people who voted for him do believe it imo. If a man can draw a crowd of 30k+ people at 1am off a basis of a single tweet an hour prior I would not underestimate his following. It may be a moot point but law enforcement and many Army official's ( and veterans ) are also on his side. Clearly I'm speculating and nobody knows what "might" happen, but I'd wager heavily there would be chaos.

Professor Moriarty · 15-12-2016 12:22AM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Some people are argumentative types.

No, they're not.

HellSquirrel · 15-12-2016 12:24AM

Christy42 wrote: »

It's not out of the question that Trump was working with Putin to get an edge in the election. I mean he admires the Putin and Putin would gain a lot from it. Trump also has few morals, is it really surprising if he committed treason?

I would be surprised, tbh. I mean, he is amoral, cunning and not exactly reknowned for his common sense, so I could easily see him being lead up the garden path. I don't really see him deliberately committing treason though.

No, I think Putin was just watching from the sidelines, and giving amused pets to the idiot over the water. Trump's better for Russia than anyone else and he's gloriously easy to play. I am honestly inclined to believe Trump when he says that he's only met him once (well, it was one of his stories, but the one I think most likely). But he's never succeeded in breaking into Russia, and he has tried. Far as he's concerned, he's just buttering up a mark who seems to like his. He's extremely susceptible to flattery and Putin's said just enough amused potentially complimentary things about him to keep Trump spinning on the line. He's not adjusted to being in a completely different ball-game now and those instincts are going to give him problems if he doesn't realise the rules are very different now.

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 12:33AM

https://youtu.be/EKx8s8otZ30?t=147

Basically what's being said is the Russians have been hacking US systems for a long time. They have no idea if Russia gave Wikileaks documents or if it was somebody else.

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 04:14AM

@ at 40s. Nope, not political at all.

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 07:12AM

And another update, sorry for the spam but given the Russia thing is the big talking point at the moment I guess it's OK.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/

"Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, said in the report by the Daily Mail that he flew to Washington for a clandestine handoff with one of the email sources in September.
He said he received a package in a wooded area near American University.
“Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,” Mr. Murray told the British newspaper. “The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”"

Mr. Murray said the leakers were motivated by “disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.”

This won't help the Seth Rich speculation.

A Little Pony · 15-12-2016 07:52AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

And another update, sorry for the spam but given the Russia thing is the big talking point at the moment I guess it's OK.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/

"Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, said in the report by the Daily Mail that he flew to Washington for a clandestine handoff with one of the email sources in September.
He said he received a package in a wooded area near American University.
“Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,” Mr. Murray told the British newspaper. “The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”"

Mr. Murray said the leakers were motivated by “disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.”

This won't help the Seth Rich speculation.

The US establishment HAS to blame Russia, they have no choice. The CIA etc are just lying.

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 07:56AM

A Little Pony wrote: »

The US establishment HAS to blame Russia, they have no choice. The CIA etc are just lying.

Gone into overdrive now. They're using the Russian narrative and the media to push the notion an electoral flip is possible and not some crazy idea. Back to paying celebrities again, but this time to try and influence electors not voters.

ebbsy · 15-12-2016 07:59AM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

ebbsy wrote: »

Yeah but he still butchered Hillary in the election.

That has as much bearing on the post you quoted as my swimming certificate from 1992 (200m thank you very much).

Did you quote the wrong post or was it an exercise in smugness?

Smugness.

Igotadose · 15-12-2016 08:09AM

HellSquirrel wrote: »

I would be surprised, tbh. I mean, he is amoral, cunning and not exactly reknowned for his common sense, so I could easily see him being lead up the garden path. I don't really see him deliberately committing treason though.

No, I think Putin was just watching from the sidelines, and giving amused pets to the idiot over the water. Trump's better for Russia than anyone else and he's gloriously easy to play. I am honestly inclined to believe Trump when he says that he's only met him once (well, it was one of his stories, but the one I think most likely). But he's never succeeded in breaking into Russia, and he has tried. Far as he's concerned, he's just buttering up a mark who seems to like his. He's extremely susceptible to flattery and Putin's said just enough amused potentially complimentary things about him to keep Trump spinning on the line. He's not adjusted to being in a completely different ball-game now and those instincts are going to give him problems if he doesn't realise the rules are very different now.

Putin was directing the hacks and use of the hacked materials, per the US Intelligence services: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-officials-putin-personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146

Note: NBC is Trump's beyotch, so there's some legs to this story (other sites have it too.)

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 08:22AM

Igotadose wrote: »

Putin was directing the hacks and use of the hacked materials, per the US Intelligence services: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-officials-putin-personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146

Note: NBC is Trump's beyotch, so there's some legs to this story (other sites have it too.)

NBC is on the Clinton payroll FYI. But now it's going to get interesting, they are straight up accusing Putin of hacking the DNC and directing Wikileaks on what to do with the information. Assange has been unheard from for weeks.

I'm not saying it's untrue, I'm skeptical because there is contradicting reports coming from other agencies like the FBI saying there is no link, and no proof being provided besides statements. If they have proof they NEED to provide it to the public.

The whole situation is incredibly ironic, even if it's true they're trying to bring the election into doubt because of leaks exposing corruption in their own Government.

ebbsy · 15-12-2016 09:05AM

More votes than voters found in heavily Democratic Detroit.

Snigger Snigger

Jelle1880 · 15-12-2016 09:53AM

ebbsy wrote: »

More votes than voters found in heavily Democratic Detroit.

Snigger Snigger

Can't be, when Jill Stein said there were irregularities then she was clearly lying and wanting to get Hillary in office.

Right ?

Christy42 · 15-12-2016 10:29AM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Can't be, when Jill Stein said there were irregularities then she was clearly lying and wanting to get Hillary in office.

Right ?

No no. Killary commanded Stein to investigate states she had organised cheating in in the vague hope they would find cheating from Trump but somehow miss her own cheating.

This all makes logical sense and is obviously the truth as it could be true and you can't prove otherwise.

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 10:32AM

Christy42 wrote: »

No no. Killary commanded Stein to investigate states she had organised cheating in in the vague hope they would find cheating from Trump but somehow miss her own cheating.

This all makes logical sense and is obviously the truth as it could be true and you can't prove otherwise.

Stein held a protest outside Trump Tower on live TV and only pushed for recounts in 3 swing states where Trump won when there was states Hillary won by lesser margins to cast doubt over the election results. A friend of Trump she is not.

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 10:44AM

So the CIA ignored Congress's request yesterday yet keep leaking details to the media saying Putin was orchestrating the attacks and distribution. Strap in, it's gonna get nasty

Trent Houseboat · 15-12-2016 10:55AM

Such a nasty agency.

Igotadose · 15-12-2016 10:55AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

NBC is on the Clinton payroll FYI.

NBC's got a business relationship with Trump that's well documented. It's called "Celebrity Apprentice." I'm sure you've heard about it. So, any proof of your (imo baseless CT) accusation about NBC on Clinton's payroll?

There's at least 1 petition asking NBC to cut its business ties to Trump. He can't be President and an executive producer on a show. Nor can his offspring. Feel free to sign up, after all you are hyperfocused on politician's ethics: http://action.mediamatters.org/nbc_celebrity_apprentice_dump_trump

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I'm not saying it's untrue, I'm skeptical because there is contradicting reports coming from other agencies like the FBI saying there is no link, and no proof being provided besides statements. If they have proof they NEED to provide it to the public.

The FBI doesn't NEED to do anything YOU want. They look for proof and evidence and then provide those in criminal proceedings instigated usually by the Federal Government. I'm all in favor of them doing that when they investigate Trump. Put him on the stand, confront him with evidence, see what he says. Besides, in CT world, it's all disclaimable if you don't agree with it, and absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt if you do. Google Sandy Hook hoaxers if you need good examples.

The FBI didn't say the was no link. If you find a source that does say that, please post it. But not if its Breitbart, WashingtonTimes, or Drudge. They're just RT mouth organs these days.

Thanks

Jelle1880 · 15-12-2016 11:04AM

Haha, holy ****. I just saw his speech in Michigan. That part about Hillary is brilliant, and his fans no doubt lap it up.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-latest-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up-we-dont-care-us-elections-campaign-promise-a7467071.html

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 11:07AM

Igotadose wrote: »

So, any proof of your (imo baseless CT) accusation about NBC on Clinton's payroll?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails//fileid/5953/1591

Savannah Guthrie is on that payroll.

Eh, There's a tonne of crap on Chuck Todd too. I'll dig it up. He's one of the worst offenders from what I can remember.

The FBI doesn't NEED to do anything YOU want. They look for proof and evidence and then provide those in criminal proceedings instigated usually by the Federal Government. I'm all in favor of them doing that when they investigate Trump. Put him on the stand, confront him with evidence, see what he says. Besides, in CT world, it's all disclaimable if you don't agree with it, and absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt if you do. Google Sandy Hook hoaxers if you need good examples.

The FBI didn't say the was no link. If you find a source that does say that, please post it. But not if its Breitbart, WashingtonTimes, or Drudge. They're just RT mouth organs these days.

Thanks

Wrong http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 11:13AM

Here's an email with Chuck Todd talking to the DNC.

"Hey Chuck, per our conversation earlier today, I’d appreciate it if you passed along the following to the Morning Joe team. I understand Joe and Mika will say whatever they’re going to say in terms of opinion, but at a minimum they should consider the facts on some of the key allegations they’re making."

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5508

There's a tonne of crap on him, and he's NBCs Political director. They're ALL at it, well every network besides Fox.

Billy86 · 15-12-2016 11:16AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails//fileid/5953/1591

Savannah Guthrie is on that payroll.

Eh, There's a tonne of crap on Chuck Todd too. I'll dig it up. He's one of the worst offenders from what I can remember.

So what you're saying is that everyone who attends (or accepts an invitation for) a dinner/cocktails automatically becomes a part of the hosts payroll?

Christy42 · 15-12-2016 11:17AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Stein held a protest outside Trump Tower on live TV and only pushed for recounts in 3 swing states where Trump won when there was states Hillary won by lesser margins to cast doubt over the election results. A friend of Trump she is not.

This in no way contradicts my point. She went off on those states for her own reasons. Potentially because she didn't like the suggestions of voter irregularities going uncontested, maybe she didn't want Trump to be president, maybe it was a well made cynacil ploy for email addresses/money. I was just pointing out the Trump conspiracy theories are starting to contradict each other.

As for the fbi investigation into Russia-the investigations are ongoing and seems very close to what they said about Hillary being corrupt which Trump supporters seemed to take as proof of her guilt:p. This deserves further investigation with no conclusions being jumped to.

Jelle1880 · 15-12-2016 11:18AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Here's an email with Chuck Todd talking to the DNC.

"Hey Chuck, per our conversation earlier today, I’d appreciate it if you passed along the following to the Morning Joe team. I understand Joe and Mika will say whatever they’re going to say in terms of opinion, but at a minimum they should consider the facts on some of the key allegations they’re making."

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5508

There's a tonne of crap on him, and he's NBCs Political director. They're ALL at it, well every network besides Fox.

You genuinely believe Fox is the only believable network ? They're the exact same (even worse imo), only biased towards Trump and his ilk.

Billy86 · 15-12-2016 11:19AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Here's an email with Chuck Todd talking to the DNC.

"Hey Chuck, per our conversation earlier today, I’d appreciate it if you passed along the following to the Morning Joe team. I understand Joe and Mika will say whatever they’re going to say in terms of opinion, but at a minimum they should consider the facts on some of the key allegations they’re making."

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5508

There's a tonne of crap on him, and he's NBCs Political director. They're ALL at it, well every network besides Fox.

And again, nothing there about him being on their payroll. Nor was there anything about Savannah Guthrie being on their payroll. I understand you're still in 'deflect from Trump, keep to the BUT BUT BUT HILLARY! memo' mode, but yet you're not backing your statements up with fact.

Meanwhile, Trump was one of the faces of NBC for the last decade or so.

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 11:20AM

Billy86 wrote: »

So what you're saying is that everyone who attends (or accepts an invitation for) a dinner/cocktails automatically becomes a part of the hosts payroll?

Why was there no Fox reporters?

There's individual emails backing it all up. So in short, to answer your question, yes.

Billy86 · 15-12-2016 11:22AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Why was there no Fox reporters?

There's individual emails backing it all up. So in short, yes.

There were no FOX reporters because FOX has a long, deep seated hatred for the Clintons and has had for a long time. None of this shows people being on their payroll, all it shows is you making stuff up to deflect from talking about Trump, the now irrelevant 'BUT HILLARY!' memo.

El Presidente Trump

Comments