El Presidente Trump

A Little Pony wrote: »

She didn't even visit one of the states, for a long time did barely did any press conferences. Trump worked his ass off for the win, he was all over the place, constantly working away to get his message out. If he runs again, he will win again. I don't see anyone who is on his level for strategy and having that will to win.

And after his 8 years. I can see Ivanka Trump becoming the first female president of America. :cool:

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Nah, I'm kind of hoping Kanye west wasn't talking through his arse and runs. If he does, I'm actually probably going to shill as hard as I can for him. Just for the craic like.
Hate just about everything about him, but how funny would Kanye be in the White House!?

Forgot about him.

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

No it was talking about the fact that Hillary did in fact have policies encouraged people to vote for her. :rolleyes:.

So did my main man, Gary Johnson. Although I imagine Aleppo will haunt his dreams in a similar manner to countless Syrian soldiers.

He did get a fair vote though.

Joey Jo-Jo Junior wrote: »

Read it again. That's not what I was talking about at all. I know why she didn't win. Never mentioned that at all. We were talking about policies and the American people agreeing with it.

You just completely changed the subject.

Policy? Policy??
Most of the people voting Hillary voted "because it's her turn", "it's time for our first female president", etc etc. And of course, "She's not Donald Trump!" You're giving them way too much credit.
There are a lot of first female presidents that wouldn't have completely ruined the moment. Michelle Obama for one, Jaysus, Sarah Pailin or Conda Rice would clear the bar that yoke set...
It's why a lot of people voted Trump too, btw - "He's not Hillary!".... Stupid reason, but thanks for the vote... Like the morons who actually believed he'd "deal with jews and blacks!"
Thanks for the one thing you were good for - your vote. I'd ask that they kindly swallow their weapons, but they might come in handy by 2020...

It's a question of the least ****tiest pick, and "Drumpfhkkkitler" with all his glaring faults, is slightly less ****ty than Hillary.
It was that simple for far more people than you think - on both sides. Policy had feck all to do with it

A Little Pony wrote: »

The election is NOT about the popular vote.

Becasuse trump didn't win it?

ebbsy wrote: »

I think his son might run. He certainly knows how to talk.

The brothers Grimm.

Except in four years I expect the name trump will be a joke.

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Eeeh, speak for yourself on that. A lot of people actually looked at their policies and noted the impressive dearth in Trump's. Maybe "he's not Clinton" was enough for -you-, but don't tar us all with the ignorant brush!

Hah, yeah, me...
Oh and I'm the chief tar administrator in this thread yeah....
A lot of people think they can vote for a world where they'll "stick it to the man". Well it's not going to happen.
You will never, ever make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. Ya just won't...
First off, that's why Sanders was a bust.
Secondly, that left them with Trump, or Clinton.
Hillary who promised to make the big guys pay their share, (while those same lads threw everything behind her... :rolleyes: )
Or Trump, who wasn't going to put those lads into much power, but had plans for his own...

Trump is likely to be straight forward about obscene deregulation. CEOs will see their wages going from 500k, to 7 or 800k probably. But if that translates to Bob's wage packet going from 25k to 28k, then go for it.
If you think there's another way to bump Bob's packet by 3k, you're the delusional one, with no idea who actually holds the cards.
The money wins, and if it doesn't, you don't get any

Now, there's every chance that won't happen. Bob might see **** all. But at least there was a chance with Trump, even with his cabinet in the wings, it's still a chance. That chance was never there with Hillary. If it doesn't happen with Donald then to me it was never going to happen, If Donald stsrts a war with Russia, then to me it was going to happen either way, so what of it but sit back and laugh at people just like me who think they matter, because at least I wasn't going to get that with Hillary!

My reasons for preferring the orange chap were always simple, I don't have to bend over backwards yet to defend him, like you lit seem to imagine a veritable army of his goose stepping supporters are doing, because he hasn't done something that's going to severely affect the world. At least yet...

gosplan wrote: »

Without trying to get into things you've clearly got a strong mind on, the bit about 'if wages go up 3k, that's down to Trump but war with Russia wouldn't be'.

I get you were kidding about war in Russia but I take your point. Are there any areas you feel Trump may leave things worse off than he found it or are global issues already predetermined?

War with Russia could be. That's what I meant. He could turn and decide to do exactly what others were going to do, hence the nihilistic joking, but at least it's only a chance with him..
In all fairness, he's probably not going to be as good for America overall than hoped, but with TTIP on shaky ground with some reckoning it's all but dead in the water, he's already proven better for us little Europeans than his alternative who was all for it..
Give crowds like Cerberus and Nestlé far more power and behind closed doors too, what could possibly go wrong...

Why would Hillary start a war with Russia ? After all, didn't she give them 20% of the US' plutonium ? :pac:

I removed my post since there's no real use in arguing with you, but since you pretend to have a lot of experience in this matter I'll indulge you.
Shall we look at the actual report ?

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

Perhaps we can include the announcement of the Department of Treasury:

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20161229.aspx

The reason the graphics are simple is because it was a very basic spearphishing attack (to be fair, even calling it that gives it too much credit, it was basically spoofing), it wasn't complicated at all (at least not for people who actually try to find these things) which doesn't reflect well on the US' security measures.

APT29 used legitimate domains, to include domains associated with U.S. organizations and educational institutions, to host malware and send spearphishing emails.

They literally produced an entire list of names with their online aliases and nicknames, how much proof do you want ?

If it's not true surely it should be very easy to disprove.

edit:

The Obama administration is also planning to release a detailed “joint analytic report” from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security that is clearly based in part on intelligence gathered by the National Security Agency

Let's wait for that shall we ? Although I'm fairly certain I can predict your response to that