Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Christy42 · 14-01-2017 12:31AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I don't think Trump is clean at all fwiw. But it's a different type of dirty.

What's come out about Huma Abedin ( She was shown be under FBI investigation in a FBI vault dump because of her connections and leaves of absence ) , the huge collection of emails on Weiners laptop, HRC dealings with countries like Saudi Arabia/Pay to play stuff, her stance on increased Migration from Syria among places to the US, and the shady ethics of her election campaign made me think something more sinister was at play.

This thread is about Trump. Impeach in him will not. I repeat will not put Hillary in the white house. She is a non factor now. Surely Trump should be punished for his misdeeds? And for someone you think is dirty you trust him a lot with his views on the Russian dnc hack.

A Little Pony · 14-01-2017 12:36AM

Sand wrote: »

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Did you read the intelligence report the US Government released a week or two ago on Russia?

They said none of the emails were fake.

Do you not believe the US Government intelligence agencies?

They said the Russians hacked the DNC and the RNC. They didn't say that every email and every rumour was true. The Russian intelligence services filtered those hacks to find and "enrich" the emails that would assist their asset Donald Trump before they were passed to Wikileaks. Thats why RNC emails are not released. Yet anyway.

But you're so edgy and cool, you trust random people on the internet to tell the truth when everyone else is dishonest. We're all just asleep.

The emails aren't fake man, no one is going to sit for forever and write thousands of fake emails out. The DNC had an awful strategy and sheer arrogance lost them the election as much as anything. Trump was never going to lose this election looking back on it, he just had too much for the Democrats, 8 years of Obama, a 3rd term for the DNC wasn't going to happen.

Political fatigue does happen and she deserved to lose. Trump won the majority of states, which is the electoral college. The election is NOT about the popular vote, otherwise Trump would have spent months in mainly California, Texas, Florida etc. But the electoral college was written up for a reason, so those states don't decide every election.

The sooner people STOP peddling this nonsense about the popular vote and look at what the electoral college is and the strategy Trump used to win. Trump knew for him to win he needed to get into the rust belt states and break the blue wall. If he didn't do that, he would not have won.

His strategy was perfect, he played a blinder as an underdog and the media and American celebrities/TV show hosts just ridiculed and laughed. Thought he had no chance, dismissed middle America, dismissed the concerns of the working class voters in America and they got an absolute hiding.

Now they are embarrassed and can't believe he demolished them and are now hitting out mainly due to sheer frustration at how they got it so wrong. If you want to blame anyone, blame Hillary Clinton, she was the Democrat candidate, she was awful, had no message and lost convincingly to Trump. History will not be kind to her.

Christy42 · 14-01-2017 12:36AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That's what the FBI themselves dumped about Huma Abedin. Ignore the stuff on the sides in the red text. Actually I'll edit it because I'll get slated.

At the risk of dragging this off topic. Please tell me there is more than that. Even if there is, why would you lead with something as weak as that except to draw someone (like me) into asking?

If that is the standard of proof required to show dodginess then Trump will be declared a Russian spy by week's end. That literally just says the incident is being investigated.

Hank Scorpio · 14-01-2017 12:36AM

Christy42 wrote: »

This thread is about Trump. Impeach in him will not. I repeat will not put Hillary in the white house. She is a non factor now. Surely Trump should be punished for his misdeeds? And for someone you think is dirty you trust him a lot with his views on the Russian dnc hack.

His dirt is shady business deals, I think ( or i hope ) that's about as far as it goes.

Hank Scorpio · 14-01-2017 12:38AM

Christy42 wrote: »

At the risk of dragging this off topic. Please tell me there is more than that. Even if there is, why would you lead with something as weak as that except to draw someone (like me) into asking?

If that is the standard of proof required to show dodginess then Trump will be declared a Russian spy by week's end. That literally just says the incident is being investigated.

It never came out in the press that Abedin was under investigation during the campaign. The FBI dumped that like a week ago.

Do do you not think it's weird there was a collection of 650k ( or whatever the number is ) emails on Weiners laptop?

Also I know it's off topic, but boards is dead so there's not really any point making a thread about this stuff.

Christy42 · 14-01-2017 12:47AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

His dirt is shady business deals, I think ( or i hope ) that's about as far as it goes.

Is that not enough? He was corrupt in his business dealings. There is nothing to say it won't carry over. It isn't like his switch to politician was sudden. He has been tedting out supoort for years and carried on with dodgy business deals. Trump U admitted guilt in the settlement. His charity is under investigation. Added to this he is a compulsive liar. He has hidden his tax returns for reasons he made up and are lies. He still has conflict of interest failings. I am aware it is difficult for him because of the nature of his business but he still has those issues. A government agency has offered to help though, if he accepted their help I would be happy. They pointed out Rex as someone who did it well.

Added to this he has already used his position unethically. He shilled for a company because they had given him money (and because of the boycott to be fair but it is still unethical abuse of his position, Obama did not suddenly say every should see Hamilton). He has directly attacked companies who don't do what he says. He attacks anyone who insults him. He attacked a show for making a well reasoned speech to Mike Pence (who handled it well).

There are some other dodgy stuff including how much Ivanka has been on the phone and a tower in south America but I don't think they have been proven.

Hank Scorpio · 14-01-2017 12:53AM

Christy42 wrote: »

Is that not enough? He was corrupt in his business dealings. There is nothing to say it won't carry over.

It might well carry over. I'm not defending it.

There wasn't much of a choice from what I have seen.

BabyCheeses · 14-01-2017 12:58AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

If you have use the stance the Wikileaks emails are fake ( even after US intelligence has said they aren't ), you've already lost the argument.

Tell me, why were people from the DNC and the media fired because of them?

Did the Russians fool the DNC and news outlets like CNN too?

The corrupt US intelligence said they are real?

Christy42 · 14-01-2017 01:00AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

It never came out in the press that Abedin was under investigation during the campaign. The FBI dumped that like a week ago.

Do do you not think it's weird there was a collection of 650k ( or whatever the number is ) emails on Weiners laptop?

Also I know it's off topic, but boards is dead so there's not really any point making a thread about this stuff.

Hillary is no longer interesting. Trump and Russia and China are bigger stories. Hillary is already under investigation and has been repeatedly, what is one more? Especially as the fbi have failed to get enough for an arrest each time so far. If she had won sure. Right now I don't think it would get clicks unless they managed to tie in an active politician. If she gets arrested then it will appear.

Sure I do. However I have not been provided with anything to make a judgement on that. I mean I just can't get inferences about what exactly would be dodgy about it. They need to be tied to something specific. I mean I am not even sure whst would generate that many emails.

None of this is to the standard of proof you are requiring for Donald Trump to say the least. Just because there may or may not be dodgy stuff over there does not mean we should not go after anything dodgy in the next president elect.

I mean you can say the fbi won't arrest Hillary because of who she is but they have dug a lot for a team not wanting to make an arrest and we'll, Trump is coming across as having a vendetta. He called them corrupt over the Russian hack thing before being briefed. His credibility in that argument is shot as far as I am concerned. If Trump feels he has a case he needs to bring it to the Senate and House. Sly remarks on twitter will not count as battling corrupt agencies. It just makes them look reasonable to most.

Hank Scorpio · 14-01-2017 01:01AM

BabyCheeses wrote: »

The corrupt US intelligence said they are real?

That's the thing, when you can't attack the validity of the emails because of Wikileaks 100% authenticity record, you have to attack their motive.

Hence Assange is a Russia agent, according to them. Even tho he's released 800k emails damaging to Russia and Putin, and more than that about the Syrian conflict.

Hank Scorpio · 14-01-2017 01:04AM

Christy42 wrote: »

Hillary is no longer interesting. Trump and Russia and China are bigger stories. Hillary is already under investigation and has been repeatedly, what is one more? Especially as the fbi have failed to get enough for an arrest each time so far. If she had won sure. Right now I don't think it would get clicks unless they managed to tie in an active politician. If she gets arrested then it will appear.

Sure I do. However I have not been provided with anything to make a judgement on that. I mean I just can't get inferences about what exactly would be dodgy about it. They need to be tied to something specific. I mean I am not even sure whst would generate that many emails.

None of this is to the standard of proof you are requiring for Donald Trump to say the least. Just because there may or may not be dodgy stuff over there does not mean we should not go after anything dodgy in the next president elect.

I mean you can say the fbi won't arrest Hillary because of who she is but they have dug a lot for a team not wanting to make an arrest and we'll, Trump is coming across as having a vendetta. He called them corrupt over the Russian hack thing before being briefed. His credibility in that argument is shot as far as I am concerned. If Trump feels he has a case he needs to bring it to the Senate and House. Sly remarks on twitter will not count as battling corrupt agencies. It just makes them look reasonable to most.

Agree with most of what you said. I think the situation will be different after Jan 20th, assuming he gets in.

wildgreen · 14-01-2017 01:19AM

david75 wrote: »

Chomsky warns ‘con man’ Trump will drag civilization down to the ‘utter depths of barbarism’

... "Though he noted Trump has ... progressive forces ... could develop a constructive alternative that “leads to real policies of hope and change.”

So even Chomsky is sitting on the fence. Personally I don't care about what happens at home in America and his international policies can hardly be worse then those preferred by the intelligence agencies who seem so challenged by him that they want to subvert the election results.

Christy42 · 14-01-2017 02:23AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/820021862931591168

I was thinking Trump having a heart attack could lead to civil war. Or any natural cause of death aside from a twister or something like that. I mean I would be suspicious and I know his doctor's note contains at least one lie (he is unlikely to be the healthiest president to ever take office, that doctor has not examined all presidents).

Granted that post is pure trolling but I do find it amusing. Maybe they believe they are in threat. Personally if I was a corrupt intellegence officer I don't think killing Assange would help. Information will get released if a major government wants to release it. They can set up a shell wikileaks as it were. Trump or Russian operatives would be better targets. The Russian operative also has the benefit of being less high profile.

FA Hayek · 14-01-2017 02:28AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nobody officially knew Reagan had dementia, and some people are still denying it to this day.

But he was 70 when he took office, stumbled over words, had a poor memory, fell asleep at meetings, had to be kept away from the press, and even had his wife prompt him with answers at times.

He was known to be an "amiable dunce" to his own party handlers, while he had a much better handle on things 20 years earlier. It is pretty clear now that he was on a decline before he was ever installed.

What historical revisionist garbage is this? You are basically engaging in fake news yourself, making it up as you go on.

First of all he was 69 when he took office. He was then diagnosed in 1994, a full 6 years after he left office.

Here you are saying that he had alzheimers before 1980!! Yet, you do not prove it or link to any peer reviewed study that states this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/health/parsing-ronald-reagans-words-for-early-signs-of-alzheimers.html?_r=0

Now a clever new analysis has found that during his two terms in office, subtle changes in Mr. Reagan’s speaking patterns linked to the onset of dementia were apparent years before doctors diagnosed his Alzheimer’s disease in 1994.

The findings, published in The Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease by researchers at Arizona State University, do not prove that Mr. Reagan exhibited signs of dementia that would have adversely affected his judgment and ability to make decisions in office.

You, sir are engaging in fake news.
And what is worse you are taking a medical condition, a terrible medical contrition to get your own sly petty digs in and make political points.

Not only you engage in fake news, your a heartless keyboard warrior to boot? What next, making fun of politicians who get cancer, lost children to leukaemia?

Hank Scorpio · 14-01-2017 02:29AM

Christy42 wrote: »

I was thinking Trump having a heart attack could lead to civil war. Or any natural cause of death aside from a twister or something like that. I mean I would be suspicious and I know his doctor's note contains at least one lie (he is unlikely to be the healthiest president to ever take office, that doctor has not examined all presidents).

Granted that post is pure trolling but I do find it amusing. Maybe they believe they are in threat. Personally if I was a corrupt intellegence officer I don't think killing Assange would help. Information will get released if a major government wants to release it. They can set up a shell wikileaks as it were. Trump or Russian operatives would be better targets. The Russian operative also has the benefit of being less high profile.

They are under threat, they've always been under threat. Why did Kerry move to get Assange's internet cut off, why is the embassy surrounded by spies?

It's not Trump they're talking about.

InTheTrees · 14-01-2017 02:29AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That's the thing, when you can't attack the validity of the emails because of Wikileaks 100% authenticity record, you have to attack their motive.

Thats illogical.

Why should i accept wikileaks future authenticity just because they may have been right in the past? It doesnt make any sense.

And who is this that claims they're "100%" authentic anyway?

Hank Scorpio · 14-01-2017 02:31AM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Thats illogical.

Why should i accept wikileaks future authenticity just because they may have been right in the past? It doesnt make any sense.

And who is this that claims they're "100%" authentic anyway?

They're 100% authentic because not a single publication they've released has been shown to be false, which holds them in higher regard than any other news outlet on the planet.

FA Hayek · 14-01-2017 02:32AM

Billy86 wrote: »

I certainly don't recall making fun of somebody with Alzheimers so not sure what your last sentence is getting at there. Though it is correct that having Alzheimers he never should have been running for president as he was too easily influenced by others, which I guess is something Trump might have in common with him.

Luckily for Reagan he was not going to end up homeless and destitute due to his mental health issues, unlike many Californians and Americans did due to his measures.

Can you prove to me that he had Alzheimers while running for office in 1980?

Can you give me actual specifics to how his measures effected people with mental health? Living standards, wealth and home ownership went up during his term.

FA Hayek · 14-01-2017 03:03AM

Sand wrote: »

So you can't independently verify the image fed to you by Wikileaks/Russian hackers. See, you don't lose anything by admitting it.

To be honest, one could do that with everything. Wikileaks are fairly reputable, one of the last reputable sources out there. Has anything they produced been shown to be fake?

It is clear you are trying to play the man here, not the ball. Actions like this makes one prone to logical mistakes and emotional reactions.

InTheTrees · 14-01-2017 03:04AM

FA Hayek wrote: »

Can you give me actual specifics to how his measures effected people with mental health?

Reagan stopped the public mental health programs. Those people were pushed out onto the street and a large proportion of them end up in prison today.

WinnyThePoo · 14-01-2017 04:06AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

They're 100% authentic because not a single publication they've released has been shown to be false, which holds them in higher regard than any other news outlet on the planet.

Then how did the podesto cooking conspiracy come about?

Igotadose · 14-01-2017 08:58AM

Interesting read about Obamacare in NY Magazine this morning. Summary (I really wish fellow posters would be less lazy and stop just posting links, have the decency to quote at least one interesting point from the article, for one thing it reduces ad revenue for the disreputable sites like CNSnews, Breitbart, Zerohedge....)

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/gop-voters-hate-obamacare-theyll-hate-its-replacement-more.html

"Here’s what they’d rather have:

If these Trump voters could write a health plan, it would, many said, focus on keeping their out-of-pocket costs low, control drug prices and improve access to cheaper drugs.
The trouble is, of course, that keeping out-of-pocket costs high and letting market forces control drug prices are fundamental principles of conservative health-care policy, which have been reflected in every Republican health-care proposal for years. To conservative policy thinkers, overutilization of health services, encouraged by government subsidies and regulations (along with “defensive medicine” caused by consumer lawsuits), is the primary source of rising health-care prices and virtually every sin of the health-care system."

===
Personal experience is that the writer is spot on about the HSA bullsh1te. Why should I have to set aside $6000 of my annual income - note that this was long before Obamacare was a gleam in the eye, like 2003 - in order to pay outrageous drug and medical expenses? A drug I relied on for a few years, cost $5/pill! And that was the best price I could find!

Further, thanks to Obamacare, various family members with preexisting conditions no longer prevented us from getting insurance!

The emotional strings the GOP plays, is 'everyone has to buy insurance now, and doesn't it stink that premiums go up.' Sorry, but this was the case for everyone in the past - you might've not been aware of it as your employer took care of it, and still the majority of you get employer health care, but once that ends, well, this is where you are.

Without national health, and the Irish don't realize what a gem they have here compared to the US, this was true pre-Obamacare, and will be true even with the nonsensical 'repeal and replace' effort, which now say they'll pay for part of it via 'tax credits.' The form of the tax credit is what'll matter here.

Now, Trump has said he has a new plan and it'll all be explained down the road. But, the tGOP are already drafting resolutions and doing House/Senate 'bookkeeping' to get this done, so how can Trump have a plan 'not quite yet.' And who is doing that plan? And what, exactly, will it change? I'd wager Trump produces NOTHING here.

Also don't forget about recission, that was a business technique used by the medical insurers to eliminate expensive people - that is, delay and deny payments and care until they die. Unethical and evil, yes. Good for the bottom line until some of them are sued into oblivion. I can recount at least one personal anecdote about a health insurer causing a friend's mother to be delayed treatment till it was too late. A year later with Obamacare in place and she'd still be alive today.

The only candidate who had this right was Sanders, US needs join the rest of the world in nationalizing its health insurance, with prices and fees set by the government.

ebbsy · 14-01-2017 11:59AM

So what are everybody's plans for Friday ? Office parties, house events etc . I will have Fox news on all day with the flag flying proudly outside.

Mr. CooL ICE · 14-01-2017 12:21PM

Mod:

Hank Scorpio, no newsdumps please. Contribute something to what you post here

Hande hoche! · 14-01-2017 12:21PM

ebbsy wrote: »

So what are everybody's plans for Friday ? Office parties, house events etc . I will have Fox news on all day with the flag flying proudly outside.

Torn between doing somewhat similar, while having burgers and beer, and angrily ranting on social media. If engaging in that later I will probably refer to him as Drumpf. That way everyone will know about my fierce political wit.

B0jangles · 14-01-2017 12:56PM

I suppose he doesn't want to make the jokes too easy

https://apnews.com/b2159d51ff7b47cc97a03c10d0954994?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

It's the great port-a-potty cover-up for President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration.

Workers preparing for the inauguration Jan. 20 have taped over the name of the company — "Don's Johns" — that has long supplied portable restrooms for major outdoor events in the nation's capital.

Virginia-based Don's Johns calls itself the Washington area's top provider of portable toilet rentals. But the name apparently strikes too close to home for organizers of the inauguration of Donald John Trump.

Workers have placed blue tape over the company name on dozens of portable restrooms installed near the Capitol for the inauguration.

The company's name is clearly visible upon close inspection, but is blocked for a wide-angle view by a TV or still camera.

A spokesman for the Architect of the Capitol, which oversees the Capitol and its grounds, said the logos were being covered or removed to comply with Capitol grounds restrictions on advertising.

Staff determined that signs for Gene's Johns — a competitor that also is providing portable toilets for the inauguration — "can be easily peeled off," the spokesman said in an email. The Don's Johns logos cannot be removed easily "and are being covered with tape," the email said.

Don's Johns has provided portable toilets for many major events in Washington, including the 2009 and 2013 inauguration ceremonies for President Barack Obama, Weghorst said. No logos were taped over during those events, he said.

The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and the Presidential Inaugural Committee declined to comment.

Such a huffy baby.

InTheTrees · 14-01-2017 01:33PM

Igotadose wrote: »

The emotional strings the GOP plays, is 'everyone has to buy insurance now, and doesn't it stink that premiums go up.' Sorry, but this was the case for everyone in the past - you might've not been aware of it as your employer took care of it, and still the majority of you get employer health care, but once that ends, well, this is where you are.

It is really incredible that the republicans want to fully revert to a broken inefficient barely workable system.

Have they completely forgotten how healthcare reform has been an election issue since the 1980's?

And their entire "plan" to replace the ACA seems to be the old "Health Savings Accounts" where people can save money to pay for medical expenses before tax. Wohoo. In a country where a broken leg can cost you $20,000, or $30,000/year to treat a diabetic, thats not going to help much.

A Little Pony · 14-01-2017 01:44PM

Wikileaks has released thousands of emails and information. The fact some people think they would just design and make those emails up is laughable. Why can't some just accept they got caught out? Hillary is well known for her corruption. It was one of the reasons she lost.

FatherTed · 14-01-2017 02:08PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

It is really incredible that the republicans want to fully revert to a broken inefficient barely workable system.

Have they completely forgotten how healthcare reform has been an election issue since the 1980's?

And their entire "plan" to replace the ACA seems to be the old "Health Savings Accounts" where people can save money to pay for medical expenses before tax. Wohoo. In a country where a broken leg can cost you $20,000, or $30,000/year to treat a diabetic, thats not going to help much.

Agreed. Or the repubs have no plan. The repubs and trump have been talking about overturning ACA since 2010 - 7 years. So they've had 7 years to come up with something and what do they produce? Nada/zilch/nothing. Now their supporters expect them to suddenly produce something better now but it won't happen. These repub and trump idiots have no idea what they're going to do so my guess is that they'll announce plans to get rid of ACA but not actually do it and say of its so complicated it will take 4 years to come up with a new plan so they can try to ride the next election cycles out.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Wikileaks has released thousands of emails and information. The fact some people think they would just design and make those emails up is laughable. Why can't some just accept they got caught out? Hillary is well known for her corruption. It was one of the reasons she lost.

My problem with assange is that he is selective for his own good. He'll only release stuff that won't incriminate him or this supporters e.g. the repubs and trump. His goal with the Clinton/DNC emails was to prevent her from getting elected so she wouldn't appoint someone to come after him.

Grayson · 14-01-2017 02:25PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

They're 100% authentic because not a single publication they've released has been shown to be false, which holds them in higher regard than any other news outlet on the planet.

They don't write stuff themselves. People pass documents to them and they publish.

Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Comments