America under President Trump

[?Impact]

14 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Yes....Canadians love American content over their own.    President Trump will continue this cultural tradition.

Very true, American late night television has been increasing in popularity the past few months. Canadians tuned out after Carson retired, and other than a brief stint about 5 years ago it was in sore need of revival.

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

I've no doubt there will be an attempt at improved relations between the two, based on common ground, namely radical Islam and China...........  

I have little doubt as well. Global instability will be the official pretext given for the American/Russian Co-Dominiun.  Of course that'll also make it a lot easier for the West's financial services sector to service Russia's oligarchs.

Edited January 5, 2017 by eyeball

[Derek 2.0]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Global instability will be the official pretext given for the American/Russian Co-Dominiun.  Of course that'll also make it a lot easier for the West's financial services sector to service Russia's oligarchs.

 

Nah.....the Corporations and their future Condottieri would never let that happen  

 

 

[betsy]

Looks like America under Trump will see him shaming elected politicians into action!

 

 

Quote

Trump blasts Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel for record-setting 762 homicides and 4,331 shooting victims in 2016 and says he 'must ask for Federal help' if he can't fix Windy City

 

Emanuel, a former Barack Obama White House chief of staff, visited with Trump at his Trump Tower office on December 7.

The pair reportedly talked about the mayor's concern that Trump would deport 'dreamers,' children brought to the U.S. illegally who have commit no crimes during their years-long unauthorized stays.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4080790/Chicago-records-762-homicides-2016-making-bloodiest-12-months-20-YEARS-Windy-City.html#ixzz4UscPVJgK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

 

At that meeting, despite Trump's platform on Law and Order, the mayor never even mentioned the city's problem with crimes?  That twit was a deserved  dig.

Edited January 5, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

6 hours ago, Omni said:

I'm popping the corn for Trumps. Can't wait. I want to see if he can try to get it together to sound even close to presidential. If he sticks to the teleprompter it might just get boring, but he usually wanders.

 

I'm popping the corn for the 11th of January - when Trump will give a press conference right after Obama's farewell speech on the 10th.

 

Quote

Trump To Hold Press Conference Right After Obama Gives Farewell Address

http://www.westernjournalism.com/trump-to-hold-press-conference-right-after-obama-gives-farewell-address/

 

I might not pop any corn on the 10th though, but will still watch the farewell speech anyway, just so I'll know what Trump will be plinking from that farewell speech (in case he says something). 

Gosh.....it's hard for Obama to have the limelight.   Trump is always right at his heels!  It'll be Trump they're gonna be talking about, not Obama.

Edited January 5, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

7 hours ago, Omni said:

 I want to see if he can try to get it together to sound even close to presidential. If he sticks to the teleprompter it might just get boring, but he usually wanders.

 

 

You're used to the old stereo-typed "presidential" of simple posturing for photo-ops.    One thing for sure about Trump - he ain't no stereotype!  Get used to the new, improved now-look of Presidential! 

 

(Btw, they showed him walking on his way to meet with Dems to save Obamacare, and he was strutting like a gangsta! it's not presidential to "strut" when you walk. Not dignified. Especially when your hair has turned all gray! )

Edited January 5, 2017 by betsy

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

(Btw, they showed him walking on his way to meet with Dems to save Obamacare, and he was strutting like a gangsta! it's not presidential to "strut" when you walk. Not dignified. Especially when your hair has turned all gray! )

 

Yes...when Trump is wearing a suit with big overcoat, he looks like an east coast mobster.   Huge contrast with skinny stick man Obama.  

Trump struts in like The Godfather....I love it !

[betsy]

25 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes...when Trump is wearing a suit with big overcoat, he looks like an east coast mobster.   Huge contrast with skinny stick man Obama.  

Trump struts in like The Godfather....I love it !

 

Huh.  I didn't notice that Godfather suit -  maybe because every heavy man wears them?  I love the movie. 

At least, he didn't look like the Matrix!

 

Thanks for bringing up the Godfather.  Now I know what's nagging me.....check out the new topic.

Edited January 5, 2017 by betsy

[bush_cheney2004]

Time to bring back the big fat American president look so popular in the early 20th century.   Top hat...cigars...the works.

 

[betsy]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Time to bring back the big fat American president look so popular in the early 20th century.   Top hat...cigars...the works.

 

 

I'm still working on my new topic.  But you know what?  I seriously think Trudeau has made another serious boo-boo.    I don't think that video will be enough to appease....

[BubberMiley]

12 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

.o, like I said before, his opinions are shaped by the intelligence he receives...........as to a DNC "conspiracy", I'd be very surprised if Ryan (or any other senior GOP members) weren't aware the realities of party politics (see Benghazi)...........Of course, Trump has managed to best Ryan/McCain/Graham in terms of political accomplishment. 

Okay, Ryan's opinions are shaped by the intelligence he receives. You believe that intelligence is a DNC conspiracy that only Trump recognized from the get-go as such, which is why he was able to confidently deny Russia's involvement during the debates because he just knew it was all a lie. You would be surprised if Ryan wasn't aware of that conspiracy, but for some reason his opinions are still shaped by it (but that doesn't make him an idiot). Do I have it straight?

[Derek 2.0]

2 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

You believe that intelligence is a DNC conspiracy that only Trump recognized from the get-go as such, which is why he was able to confidently deny Russia's involvement during the debates because he just knew it was all a lie.

 

Yes and no, I believe that political parties in any democracy can and do manipulate data for political purposes. In this example, absent being presented with such data, I believe Trump correct in not acknowledging Russian involvement with his electoral success.......further compounded by a highly contentious political race and an intelligence service with a piss poor record. Does that mean Trump knows it to be a lie? Probably not, more so, based on this political calculus and the opinions of his own advisers (including former intelligence officers) there is no upside in acknowledging something he doesn't know to be true.

 

2 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

You would be surprised if Ryan wasn't aware of that conspiracy, but for some reason his opinions are still shaped by it (but that doesn't make him an idiot). Do I have it straight?

 

No, you're confusing my point. Ryan etc would be aware of political games (the GOP plays themselves), but might not be aware of the full details of this one example. Has Ryan received the same brief as Obama, or what Trump is expected to receive? Probably not. If the intelligence is proven to be faulty, then yes, the likes of Ryan/McCain/Graham etc will look like idiots if/when the intelligence is proven to be false/hyped.....inversely, once presented with said data later this week, Trump's own opinion could be swayed.  

 

 

[BubberMiley]

6 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Yes and no, I believe that political parties in any democracy can and do manipulate data for political purposes. In this example, absent being presented with such data, I believe Trump correct in not acknowledging Russian involvement with his electoral success.......further compounded by a highly contentious political race and an intelligence service with a piss poor record. Does that mean Trump knows it to be a lie? Probably not, more so, based on this political calculus and the opinions of his own advisers (including former intelligence officers) there is no upside in acknowledging something he doesn't know to be true.

No, you're confusing my point. Ryan etc would be aware of political games (the GOP plays themselves), but might not be aware of the full details of this one example. Has Ryan received the same brief as Obama, or what Trump is expected to receive? Probably not. If the intelligence is proven to be faulty, then yes, the likes of Ryan/McCain/Graham etc will look like idiots if/when the intelligence is proven to be false/hyped.....inversely, once presented with said data later this week, Trump's own opinion could be swayed.  

 

The downside of denying something he doesn't know to be false is that it makes him look very, very guilty to unbiased observers. It isn't like he's skeptical and is waiting for further data. He's outright denying the possibility of Russia's involvement. He's saying anybody but Russia could have been involved. That's fishy. And you're extremely naïve to think, at this point, his opinion could be swayed. He knows the truth. He just won't acknowledge it because he's not as good a liar as he thinks he is.

 

 

[Derek 2.0]

2 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

The downside of denying something he doesn't know to be false is that it makes him look very, very guilty to unbiased observers. It isn't like he's skeptical and is waiting for further data. He's outright denying the possibility of Russia's involvement. He's saying anybody but Russia could have been involved. That's fishy. And you're extremely naïve to think, at this point, his opinion could be swayed. He knows the truth. He just won't acknowledge it because he's not as good a liar as he thinks he is.

 

 

 

Again, that's speculation......one could easily speculate that his own intelligence advisers have passed on information from sources still within the agencies that confirm the proof of Russian hacking is suspect and politically motivated.

 

Saying that anyone could be involved isn't fishy, but realistic.........

[BubberMiley]

3 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Saying that anyone could be involved isn't fishy, but realistic.........

But is it realistic to say anybody but Russia could be involved?

[Derek 2.0]

2 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

But is it realistic to say anybody but Russia could be involved?

 

Did he actually say that? If so, in what context?

[BubberMiley]

10 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

Did he actually say that? If so, in what context?

Haven't you been following? He said he did not believe it is Russia. It could be anyone. It could be China. It could be a 400 lb guy in his basement. But it couldn't be Russia. And Putin is really, really smart.

[Derek 2.0]

3 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Haven't you been following? He said he did not believe it is Russia. It could be anyone. It could be China. It could be a 400 lb guy in his basement. But it couldn't be Russia. And Putin is really, really smart.

 

I have been following it......and that's not what I asked......you said:

19 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

But is it realistic to say anybody but Russia could be involved?

 

As far as I know, he never said that.......I know a few weeks before Christmas, in an interview with Chris Wallace on FNS, he said he didn't know who hacked the DNC and that it could be anyone........I don't recall him stating anyone but Russia...do you have a source?

 

[BubberMiley]

9 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

As far as I know, he never said that.......I know a few weeks before Christmas, in an interview with Chris Wallace on FNS, he said he didn't know who hacked the DNC and that it could be anyone........I don't recall him stating anyone but Russia...do you have a source?

 

In December, on Fox News Sunday, he was interviewed by Chris Wallace and said:

“I think it’s ridiculous...just another excuse. I don’t believe it. I don’t know why. They talk about all sorts of things…We had a massive landslide victory—in the Electoral College…So, no, I don’t believe it at all...once they hack, if you don’t catch them in the act, you’re not gonna catch them.” When asked who "they" is, he replied “somebody in a bed someplace.”

So he explicitly stated that he considered the idea that Russia was involved to be "ridiculous" and he has countered that with a belief that it was somebody in a bed someplace instead. That is not saying he doesn't know or that we have to wait for more information or for him to get around to attending intelligence briefings. That is saying he believes it could be anybody but Russia.

[Derek 2.0]

4 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

So he explicitly stated that he considered the idea that Russia was involved to be "ridiculous" and he has countered that with a belief that it was somebody in a bed someplace instead. That is not saying he doesn't know or that we have to wait for more information or for him to get around to attending intelligence briefings. That is saying he believes it could be anybody but Russia.

No, that is your (or someone else's opinion regurgitated) hyperbolic projection on what Trump said.......I watched the actual interview several weeks ago, and I stand to be corrected, but that wasn't Trump's statement.....

 

[DogOnPorch]

Some folks really want a war with Russia...that's how upset they are at Hillary losing.

 

...if I put the mattress in front of the door and tape the windows...that should stop an H-Bomb...right?

Edited January 5, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[BubberMiley]

2 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

No, that is your (or someone else's opinion regurgitated) hyperbolic projection on what Trump said.......I watched the actual interview several weeks ago, and I stand to be corrected, but that wasn't Trump's statement.....

 

He said that the idea that Russia was involved is "ridiculous" and he doesn't believe it. What is your alternative interpretation of that statement?

[Derek 2.0]

8 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

He said that the idea that Russia was involved is "ridiculous" and he doesn't believe it. What is your alternative interpretation of that statement?

I'm going by his own statement:

 

WALLACE:  According to The Washington Post, the CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the election to help you win the presidency.  Your reaction?

DONALD TRUMP, R-PRESIDENT-ELECT:  I think it's ridiculous.  I think it's just another excuse.  I don't believe it.  I don't know why, and I think it's just -- you know, they talked about all sorts of things.  Every week, it's another excuse.  

We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College.  I guess the final numbers are now at 306.  She's down to a very low number.  

No, I don't believe that at all.  

WALLACE:  You say you don't know why.  Do you think the CIA is trying to overturn the results of the election --  

TRUMP:  No, I don’t think --

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE:  -- somehow to weaken you in office?  

TRUMP:  Well, if you look at the story and you take a look at what they said, there's great confusion.  Nobody really knows.  

And hacking is very interesting.  Once they hack, if you don't catch them in the act, you're not going to catch them.  They have no idea if it's Russia or China or somebody.  It could be somebody sitting in a bed some place.  I mean, they have no idea.  

WALLACE:  So, why would the CIA put out this story that the Russians wanted you to win?  

TRUMP:  I’m not sure they put it out.  I think the Democrats are putting it out because they suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of politics in this country.  And, frankly, I think they're putting it out.  It's ridiculous.  

We ought to get back to making America great again, which is what we're going to do.  And we've already started the process.  

WALLACE:  You've said repeatedly you don't believe the intelligence community's analysis that the Russians were involved.  

TRUMP:  Take a look.  They're not sure.  They're fighting among themselves.  They’re not sure.

WALLACE:  But the question is, these are the folks you're going to have to rely on to know what's going on in the world?

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP:  Of course, we’re going to make (ph) changes, you know, at the top.  I mean, we're going to have different people coming in because we have our people, they have their people.  And I have great respect for them.  

But if you read the stories, the various stories, they're disputing.  And certain groups don't necessarily agree.  Personally, it could be Russia.  It -- I don't really think it is.  But who knows?  I don't know either.  They don't know and I don't know.  

 

As he clearly states, he doesn't know and it could be anyone, likewise he questions the motivations of the Obama appointments within the intelligence community

 

[BubberMiley]

17 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

 

As he clearly states, he doesn't know and it could be anyone, likewise he questions the motivations of the Obama appointments within the intelligence community

 

Again, he's not saying he doesn't know if Russia did it. He's saying he doesn't believe Russia did it, even though he says there is no way of knowing who did it. He's acting like Putin's defence attorney and trying to create plausible deniability among those who don't know any better. But it's also ridiculous to say there is no way of knowing such things. His (and your) expertise in the cyber is showing through.

[DogOnPorch]

The Democrat's Plan....

1] Nuke Russia...