El Presidente Trump

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

If he does something to end the carnage in the middle east and the problems seeping into Western civilization instead of funding the terrorists I'll be fairly content. Clearly he's no saint, neither are the vast majority of politicians, they're just better hiding it.

Well, he's had an inauspicious start if that's the criteria. Appointing Friedman is like throwing petrol on the Israeli/Palestinian fire, Navarro is spitting in China's face and sabre rattling about nuclear weapons has already irritated Russia. One can only imagine what murdering terrorists' families will add to the war on terrorism. And he's not even in the White House yet. The omens don't look good for Trump as peacemaker.

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Hank Scorpio wrote:

Don't know what you're babbling about. If you're using words like honesty and rule of law, trust etc to cite why Trump should have lost the election, I think it's you who needs the wake up call.

https://conservativedailypost-guvbvz...ntons-600w.jpg

People Trump supporters don't believe:
Scientists
Politicians
Media
People they disagree with

People Trump supporters do believe:
Some dude with a sign

I don't believe the media as they are ****ing liars. And judging by the election result not very good ones either.

Hank Scorpio wrote:

Since you've chosen to ignore the videos I posted on Haiti after taking a cheap jab.

Do you think Hillary Clinton illegally receiving money from Qatar, or being involved in the selling of 20% of US uranium to Russia then receiving Clinton foundation payments in return, or receiving point for point instructions from George Soros for implementing Albania foreign policies, or ignoring help requests during Benghazi while emailing Sidney Blumenthal to push a foreign policy for monetary gain while running the state department is fact or fiction?

I don't know. I'd like to see investigations. I'm not here to defend Hillary.

Here's the great thing about me, if I can blow my own trumpet for a minute:

Apparently I'm the last person in the world willing to utter the phrase "I don't know". If people like you were willing to say I don't know before jumping feet first into the pizzagate affair perhaps a mad man wouldn't have run in there with a gun.

I don't know if Soros had any influence, the details behind the uranium deal or the minutiae of any of it and neither do you. Congress have had 12 investigations into Benghazi and that's just this week. I'd rather have all the facts than half of half of half of a forwarded email. I see smoke but no gun, you see what could be smoke or someone vaping or a heavy mist or early stages of glaucoma and see an arsenal.

ECO_Mental wrote: »

This thread is the President Trump thread, We are talking about Trump not Hillary, you remember she lost the election shes old news now. Trumpski is going to have to put on the big boy pants now be accountable all by himself for his actions he cant be blamin' everybody else like he what he wants to do, very easy to sit on the fence like he has done for the last 40 years.

As they say around here "you are playing senior hurling now boy!"

And after jan20th the honeymoon will be over and he's going to have to answer for his cabinet as well.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Slate and snopes aren't biased at all. :P

You can do your own research on things and make up your own mind, that's what I did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Not saying the above site is accurate either fwiw. When you go digging through the emails it's pretty obvious what was going on. There was a pay for play operation going on, which is why she used a private email server.

On the topic of Haiti, here's a graph from the BBC on their own investigation.

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/65273000/gif/_65273589_haiti_fund_464.gif

There's no way that Snopes is biased against Trump or pro-Clinton, their article on the uranium deal is 100% fact. They genuinely are one of the most unbiased websites out there when it comes to facts. The reason behind this is that they provide readers with all the sources they can find, so it's up to the readers to make their own ideas about it. They take claims, show what is behind them and if people then make up their own idea about it that's their choice.

Take for example their often-pointed-at article about 6 billion dollars that are missing from the State Dept. Republicans love to bang on about how that article doesn't prove the money isn't missing. But it does provide proof that according to the US government it's not 'missing', it's 'unaccounted for'. It makes a difference between losing money or misplacing it.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-lost-6-billion-at-state-dept/

Slate you're right about, but the article is still true as well. Everything you said about Haiti is almost word for word what the likes of Breitbart said, excuse me if I don't really buy into the whole 'I researched it myself' claim. That graph only proves that a huge amount of the money didn't go to Haiti, which is a disgrace. But that's all it says though.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Just knowing the majority of voters didnt want trump as president helps.

So hang on, there's what, 12 million illegally in the US?

How many states don't require voter ID?

Wouldn't it be really important to vote against the person talking about how you need to be kicked out?

InTheTrees wrote: »

ha ha ha! Thats hysterical! But that ones been done over and over by now and there's no evidence at all. Even idiot trump has admitted it.

So none of the 12 million would have thought "hmmm, I'd probably rather Hillary than Trump..."
And because the "idiot" who normally displays no common sense, agrees with that assessment, he's an endorsement of why it's true?

It's pretty common sense that nobody in tge US illegally, wanted Trump as president. On what planet could it possibly not be?

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I don't know why you're bringing up Breitbart because I honestly haven't looked at any article there regarding Haiti or uranium one. The ex Haiti senate President is a good source claiming bribery, taking away of US visa and such. NYT's has a good article about Uranium one, and there's a lot of other sources out there. There was millions of $ donated to the foundation from people connected to the deal.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation-idUSKBN12Z2SL

There's an article about Qatar money.

The problem is she was meant to disclose all donations to the foundation for transparency but didn't.

There is plenty of examples of corruption or bad ethics, foundation paying for Clinton Chelseas lifestyle/wedding, internal audits where illegal activity is admitted, Soros instructing the state departments foreign policy.

I'm not looking to point score, I'm convinced at this stage of what was going on ( deleted emails, p2p etc ), if you have a different opinion, that's fine too.

Because it's the exact same articles that they keep banging on about, despite not having clear evidence.

And to be fair, that ex-Senate President was a great pal with the military junta that Clinton helped get rid off to reinstate Aristide, it wouldn't be a shock if he's talking out of his ass because he hates them (which he has been very open about if I'm correct).

The Clinton Foundation has indeed been a bit sketchy with money, but again: It's of no consequence as she is not in power. Maybe focus should be on the way Trump's companies are being ran.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

She wanted to win as much as Trump and she went as low as Donald. This talk of Trump being worse than Hillary when he went out there spoke to the people of America. Visited a Black Church, spent time with religious community which he is not and went to Mexico City to meet the Mexican President. All part of the electioneering. Hillary was lampooning Trump in the National media and receiving glowing endorsements from world leaders.

Are you seriously suggesting he didn't spend the vast majority of his time talking about her ? It was his thing. First he did it with the other Republican candidates, then with her.

Still, my point stands: She definitely had those things in her program.