El Presidente Trump

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The guccifer bit is related at least, but I get it.

Let me ask you, why do you think the FBI is releasing files a couple of days after the hacking report, and the same day as the Wikileaks press conference?

I presume you are hinting at the fbi wanting to bury them in the wikileaks news? Or potentially vice versa. Honestly there doesn't seem to be much point. Short of an arrest on Hillary I would not expect these to be a big deal anymore. Before the election sure but she doesn't hold office and is not currently running for office. (Similarly if Trump had lost I imagine no one would have bothered with the Trump U settlement for instance unless Trump was actively talking to the public about politics still).

Do the fbi have a document release schedule and if so when did they design it?

HellSquirrel

Deleted User wrote: »

This is a downright pathetic display lads. Asking us not to bring up Hillary's emails while yourselves bringing up her emails.

We're apparently off-topic because we discuss the "harmless contents" but you're on-topic because you talk about the "harmful effects".

Shameful.

Oh christ, I attempted to discuss within the bounds of the actual topic rather than outright ignore the guy.

Aighto, I'll remove my response. Sorry HS, you'd really be better off setting up a new thread for the Wikileaks thing, attempting to meet you in the middle won't go down well and no-one really needs the topic given over entirely to mid-election cycle stuff as it detracts from this being a thread about the Trump presidency. Or presidency-electship, whatever.

So, any more thoughts regarding Congress' first move of the new year to be gutting the ethics office anyone?

Igotadose

Grayson wrote: »

Never happened. For one thing it's not possible to do that. It's actually pretty easy to protect against an EMP pulse. The USS Donald Cook is an Arleigh Burke class destroyer. It's build to withstand that crap.

The rabid anti-semite taking his lead from the Protocols really isn't worth replying to. The Rothschilds are taking over his world and his tinfoil hat's failing.Nothing new here, 30+ years of Internet postings from anti-semites and nothing they say today hasn't been said for hundreds of years. Nutter not understanding EMP's not surprising - Stormfront doesn't provide online lessons I suppose.

B_Wayne

conditioned games wrote: »

It's majority owned by the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers part own it as well. It's not traded like a company with a register number. Ownership is highly secretive, no audits allowed. Funny you mention anti Semitic, it was the Rothschilds that drew up the Anti Defamation League which meant anyone discussing the Rothschilds would be considered an anti Semitic. It's purpose is to stop people talking about their control over the world. Those that should be most angry with the Rothschilds are the Jews, it was the Rothschilds that helped finance and support Hitler leading up to and during world war 2.

So you just can't back up anything you claim, yeah? Your favourite reference point is "YouTube it", history books and any primary or secondary sources from credible places are msm spin, right? Thriving in ignorance.

HellSquirrel

Igotadose wrote: »

The rabid anti-semite taking his lead from the Protocols really isn't worth replying to. The Rothschilds are taking over his world and his tinfoil hat's failing.Nothing new here, 30+ years of Internet postings from anti-semites and nothing they say today hasn't been said for hundreds of years. Nutter not understanding EMP's not surprising - Stormfront doesn't provide online lessons I suppose.

Did you...fall down and hit your head? O.o Where on earth does anti-semitism come in in terms of whether the Donald Cook's logs show an instrument breakdown? How do the Rothschilds come in? What's Stormfront got to do with anything? Why is Grayson suddenly an anti-semite anyway?

What on earth, basically?

Edit: Oooh, it took reading it out loud to my partner, (which he probably didn't need at 8.30) to figure out "hang on, is he agreeing with Grayson and insulting the previous guy?"

HellSquirrel

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Oh christ, I attempted to discuss within the bounds of the actual topic rather than outright ignore the guy.

Aighto, I'll remove my response. Sorry HS, you'd really be better off setting up a new thread for the Wikileaks thing, attempting to meet you in the middle won't go down well and no-one really needs the topic given over entirely to mid-election cycle stuff as it detracts from this being a thread about the Trump presidency. Or presidency-electship, whatever.

So, any more thoughts regarding Congress' first move of the new year to be gutting the ethics office anyone?

Right, we'll set up threads for Hillary Clinton, Putin and Trump. And we can only talk about each person in their own threads. Because until there's proof that Trump colluded with Putin, then clearly, Putin is off-topic in here.

As for Congress' move to gut the ethics office, didn't Trump come out and say it was a bad move and they should be concentrating on other things.. Did that get mentioned in here? Did you all praise him for that or spin in negatively?

Hank Scorpio

The FBI are compromised at the highest levels, the lower down agents are pissed.

It's all going to come out after Jan 20th imo.

HellSquirrel

Deleted User wrote: »

Right, we'll set up threads for Hillary Clinton, Putin and Trump. And we can only talk about each person in their own threads. Because until there's proof that Trump colluded with Putin, then clearly, Putin is off-topic in here.

As for Congress' move to gut the ethics office, didn't Trump come out and say it was a bad move and they should be concentrating on other things.. Did that get mentioned in here? Did you all praise him for that or spin in negatively?

You are a very angry person, you know. I was attempting to meet the guy in the middle and stick to the topic of the thread while also talking with him. You were the one that decided it was all or nothing. Also, you are producing a massive red herring, or possibly crimson whale; I never said that and you know it. Admittedly, I have been desperately trying to move the conversation on to actual current affairs for about a fortnight now with little success, but hey, that's what people want to talk about.

Trump asked whether they didn't have more important things to be focussed on, while still having a go at said ethics office, so I wouldn't run away with the idea that he was being a defender of ethical practices. It may have had an effect, along with the deluge of public protest those involved got. The knowledge that the top guy wasn't really behind them would have left them exposed and the anger from the people that they'll need the votes of in future scuttled it.

Hank Scorpio

Wikileaks is related to Trump though. They're having a press conference today which is a rare event for them, and the FBI dumped info on the email investigation related to the hacking.

Should I have omitted the part that the state department were trying to bribe the FBI?

Let's be real, this is a thread for people to come and bash Trump, not much more than that.

HellSquirrel

Oh my god, it's 8.30 and I don't even care anymore. Knock yourselves out, someday I will dream that this thread will reflect more than the godawful election process and bloody Clinton, who is no longer, as the alt-rightlets have pointed out ad nauseum, even relevant.

Priebus is still an ass.

Hank Scorpio

It's 90% Trump bashing and insults

I never see anything like this being mentioned

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fiatchrysler-usa-idUSKBN14S0WL

I'm out for now, press conference is on in 5 years or so for anyone interested

HellSquirrel

HellSquirrel wrote: »

You are a very angry person, you know. I was attempting to meet the guy in the middle and stick to the topic of the thread while also talking with him. You were the one that decided it was all or nothing. Also, you are producing a massive red herring, or possibly crimson whale; I never said that and you know it. Admittedly, I have been desperately trying to move the conversation on to actual current affairs for about a fortnight now with little success, but hey, that's what people want to talk about.

Trump asked whether they didn't have more important things to be focussed on, while still having a go at said ethics office, so I wouldn't run away with the idea that he was being a defender of ethical practices. It may have had an effect, along with the deluge of public protest those involved got. The knowledge that the top guy wasn't really behind them would have left them exposed and the anger from the people that they'll need the votes of in future scuttled it.

I've been called absolutely everything over the last six months in these threads because I was anti-Clinton. So pardon me for feeling some rage here when there's a bunch of you that somehow deem her irrelevant whilst still talking about her constantly.

"Putin hacked the American election.!!.!!.>!>>!>!!!"
"How?"
"Oh, we don't talk about her. She's old news. She lost relevancy months ago."

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Oh my god, it's 8.30 and I don't even care anymore. Knock yourselves out, someday I will dream that this thread will reflect more than the godawful election process and bloody Clinton, who is no longer, as the alt-rightlets have pointed out ad nauseum, even relevant.

Priebus is still an ass.

Trump's going to win in 2020 if you guys can't even talk about why he won in January 2017.

HellSquirrel

Deleted User wrote: »

I've been called absolutely everything over the last six months in these threads because I was anti-Clinton. So pardon me for feeling some rage here when there's a bunch of you that somehow deem her irrelevant whilst still talking about her constantly.

"Putin hacked the American election.!!.!!.>!>>!>!!!"
"How?"
"Oh, we don't talk about her. She's old news. She lost relevancy months ago."

Edit: Argh, no, look, I'm not getting into this row, it'll only get more and more off-topic. Talk about whatever you like, it's no skin off my nose.

Christy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Right, we'll set up threads for Hillary Clinton, Putin and Trump. And we can only talk about each person in their own threads. Because until there's proof that Trump colluded with Putin, then clearly, Putin is off-topic in here.

As for Congress' move to gut the ethics office, didn't Trump come out and say it was a bad move and they should be concentrating on other things.. Did that get mentioned in here? Did you all praise him for that or spin in negatively?

It did get mentioned. Trump specifically mentioned he had no issue with the idea of gutting the ethics committee. He merely didn't like them spending time on it (and so I can only presume he was against them reversing the changes).

Christy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've been called absolutely everything over the last six months in these threads because I was anti-Clinton. So pardon me for feeling some rage here when there's a bunch of you that somehow deem her irrelevant whilst still talking about her constantly.

"Putin hacked the American election.!!.!!.>!>>!>!!!"
"How?"
"Oh, we don't talk about her. She's old news. She lost relevancy months ago."




Trump's going to win in 2020 if you guys can't even talk about why he won in January 2017.

Ffs. Trump has put a lot on the line based on who made the hack. That is why Putin is relevant to Trump. He has no interest in the content. In fact he said he likes Hillary. If he had pushed the Hillary must be punished line then sure it would be relevant to Trump.

As to why we had the election we had a rather large election thread. Some of us want to discuss his presidency which so far has had a lot to do with the identity of the hackers. Had he been ambivalent about the identity and waited for the results then Putin would hardly be mentioned here.

Jelle1880

After an entire campaign based on dividing and mocking anyone who disagrees Trump fans are now the ones asking to knock it off ?

Sorry, not gonna happen. No matter if that might cause him to win in 2020

Christy42

Christy42 wrote: »

It did get mentioned. Trump specifically mentioned he had no issue with the idea of gutting the ethics committee. He merely didn't like them spending time on it (and so I can only presume he was against them reversing the changes).

With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it

........may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! #DTS


He specifically said it was unfair. He did not specifically say he had no issue with gutting it. You may think those are the same but I don't.
Or did it he say that elsewhere?

Christy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it

........may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! #DTS


He specifically said it was unfair. He did not specifically say he had no issue with gutting it. You may think those are the same but I don't.
Or did it he say that elsewhere?

He certainly never said he disagreed with the idea of gutting the ethics committee, he just specifies the prioritisation. He certainly seems to at least hint he is ok with the idea from saying it is unfair.

Maybe if he could use more than 140 characters (well 280 as he used two tweets for that) to outline his stance on various policies we would have something definitive.

It is almost as if twitter is really not designed to express matters of policy!

Igotadose

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Edit: Oooh, it took reading it out loud to my partner, (which he probably didn't need at 8.30) to figure out "hang on, is he agreeing with Grayson and insulting the previous guy?"

Too early for me to post, apologies. I tried to direct my rant at the nutter CG, was trying to be supportive of Grayson's post. Don't waste your time with the likes of CG. The Rothschilds are beaming mind-control waves at him as we speak. I know this being an operative of the NWO and it's on our dark internet.

Hande hoche!

See that Meryl Streep is attacking Trump and MMA. It's going to be a long four years for Hollywood.

Jelle1880

Hande hoche! wrote: »

See that Meryl Streep is attacking Trump and MMA. It's going to be a long four years for Hollywood.

Unless you're Alec Baldwin.

Hande hoche!

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Unless you're Alec Baldwin.

Don't get me wrong, it's a handy gig and he will gets praise and steady pay for it. Still say two years down the line, I can see it slowly killing Baldwin inside...

Clarebelly

Hande hoche! wrote: »

See that Meryl Streep is attacking Trump and MMA. It's going to be a long four years for Hollywood.

She should shut her hole and stick to acting.

Hande hoche!

Clarebelly wrote: »

She should shut her hole and stick to acting.

I did see her describe Hollywood as one of the most vilified segments of society. My heart weeps for these multimillionaires.

Leroy42

Clarebelly wrote: »

She should shut her hole and stick to acting.

Yeah, down with free-speech.

Imagine, a US citizen having an opinion.

I hope Trump deals with this scandal. All comments should be passed through a ministry of internal comments.

Clarebelly

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yeah, down with free-speech.

Imagine, a US citizen having an opinion.

Streep is a US citizen with a loud hailer.

Remember when she called Maggie Thatcher an ould bitch that time she was promoting the movie "The iron lady"........... No.......... didn't think so.

Shut your hole and stick to acting.

Leroy42

Clarebelly wrote: »

Streep is a US citizen with a loud hailer.

Remember when she called Maggie Thatcher an ould bitch that time she was promoting the movie "The iron lady"........... No.......... didn't think so.

Ah right so, I wasn't aware that she had other opinions that you didn't like.

Fair enough, lock her up so.

How bloody dare she.

Should we have a standard set of rules regarding what can or can't be said or do we just make it up based on who it is or how we feel about them

Trent Houseboat

Clarebelly wrote:

She should shut her hole and stick to acting.

You're right the actor should shut up so we can all fawn over the game show host who refused to shut up.

Remind me which side of this divide keeps whingeing about attacks on speech? I thought it was the game show host's side, but then your comment would make you a hypocrite and that can't be. Don't tell me people are only defending dissent from those the agree with?

Trent Houseboat

Clarebelly wrote:

Streep is a US citizen with a loud hailer.

This is delicious.

Can anyone think of a citizen who attacked the current president with unfounded accusations and outright lies by way of their "loud hailer" for the past eight years?

Clarebelly

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ah right so, I wasn't aware that she had other opinions that you didn't like.

Fair enough, lock her up so.

How bloody dare she.

Should we have a standard set of rules regarding what can or can't be said or do we just make it up based on who it is or how we feel about them

Would you take advice from a dog on how to wire a plug?
Instruction on fetching a stick maybe, but not how to wire a plug.

I understand how this can be a Sophies choice for some though......

Jelle1880

Clarebelly wrote: »

She should shut her hole and stick to acting.

She should exercise her right to free speech.

And I'm glad she can do that.

edit: Oh, so it's because she has no political experience ?
Good thing Trump's political experience is so vast :pac:

It's funny how people should 'shut up' when they criticise Trump. Almost as if some would curb her right to free speech :pac:

Trent Houseboat

Clarebelly wrote:

Would you take advice from a dog on how to wire a plug?

Would you download a car?
What are you on about?

Clarebelly

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Would you download a car?

Prefer a Universal Serial Bus tbh.

Anyway........ good ould Meryl......... "We are all Africans"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdE1trptpSc

Leroy42

Clarebelly wrote: »

Would you take advice from a dog on how to wire a plug?
Instruction on fetching a stick maybe, but not how to wire a plug.

I understand how this can be a Sophies choice for some though......

Very good, taken straight out the Trump playbook. Make a silly statement, based on nothing but your own anger and ignorance, then when questioned come up with some ridiculous statement to try to reshape the conversation.

You think that a US Citizen should keep her mouth shut simply because she said things against Trump. You then 'backed-up' your position by stating she had said some mean things about Maggy T.

So, I am only asking to what extent you want free speech to be controlled. Should the government be allowed to vet everything on the internet. Maybe all post to boards need to be approved by the government prior to going up.

And all speechs needs to be pre-approved by the government?

I am interested to see exactly how you see the logical extension of you demand. Oh did you just lash out with little knowledge or understanding or what yu were actually saying?

Doctor Jimbob

Clarebelly wrote: »

Prefer a Universal Serial Bus tbh.

Anyway........ good ould Meryl......... "We are all Africans"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdE1trptpSc

Well, technically...

Clarebelly

Leroy42 wrote: »

You then 'backed-up' your position by stating she had said some mean things about Maggy T.

Read it again.

Leroy42

Ok, I did. Now what?

Jelle1880

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ok, I did. Now what?

Shut up and become a dog mechanic.

Or something like that.

Clarebelly

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ok, I did. Now what?

Now realise your obvious error.

PopePalpatine

Clarebelly wrote: »

Now realise your obvious error.

What, blasphemy against "m'God-Emperor"? :rolleyes:

Leroy42

Clarebelly wrote: »

Streep is a US citizen with a loud hailer.

Remember when she called Maggie Thatcher an ould bitch that time she was promoting the movie "The iron lady"........... No.......... didn't think so.

Shut your hole and stick to acting.

Sorry, you've lost me. What error? I really don't see it.

Jelle1880

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, you've lost me. What error? I really don't see it.

She didn't say bad things about Thatcher
That of course has absolutely no bearing on her rant against Trump, but it's a proven tactic to derail debate.

Clarebelly

Leroy42 wrote: »

You then 'backed-up' your position by stating she had said some mean things about Maggy T.

I never did; quite the opposite in fact.
Read my post again.

The full text of Streep's statement following Thatcher's death is as follows:


Margaret Thatcher was a pioneer, willingly or unwillingly, for the role of women in politics.

It is hard to imagine a part of our current history that has not been affected by measures she put forward in the UK at the end of the 20th century. Her hard-nosed fiscal measures took a toll on the poor, and her hands-off approach to financial regulation led to great wealth for others.

There is an argument that her steadfast, almost emotional loyalty to the pound sterling has helped the UK weather the storms of European monetary uncertainty.

But to me she was a figure of awe for her personal strength and grit. To have come up, legitimately, through the ranks of the British political system, class-bound and gender-phobic as it was, in the time that she did and the way that she did, was a formidable achievement. To have won it, not because she inherited position as the daughter of a great man, or the widow of an important man, but by dint of her own striving. To have withstood the special hatred and ridicule, unprecedented in my opinion, levelled in our time at a public figure who was not a mass murderer; and to have managed to keep her convictions attached to fervent ideals and ideas – wrongheaded or misguided as we might see them now – without corruption – I see that as evidence of some kind of greatness, worthy for the argument of history to settle. To have given women and girls around the world reason to supplant fantasies of being princesses with a different dream: the real-life option of leading their nation; this was groundbreaking and admirable.

Absolute shite talker.

Leroy42

OK I get it now.

So you're line about Maggie T was made up. OK, I accept that I am not fully versed in the sayings of Streep.

Now we have gotten my obvious shortcomings out of the way lets go back to your statement. You want Streep to:

Clarebelly wrote: »

Shut your hole and stick to acting.

So, I am only asking to what extent you want free speech to be controlled. Should the government be allowed to vet everything on the internet. Maybe all post to boards need to be approved by the government prior to going up.

And all speeches needs to be pre-approved by the government?

I am interested to see exactly how you see the logical extension of you demand. Oh did you just lash out with little knowledge or understanding or what you were actually saying?

Panrich

Leroy42 wrote: »

OK I get it now.

So you're line about Maggie T was made up. OK, I accept that I am not fully versed in the sayings of Streep.

Now we have gotten my obvious shortcomings out of the way lets go back to your statement. You want Streep to:




So, I am only asking to what extent you want free speech to be controlled. Should the government be allowed to vet everything on the internet. Maybe all post to boards need to be approved by the government prior to going up.

And all speeches needs to be pre-approved by the government?

I am interested to see exactly how you see the logical extension of you demand. Oh did you just lash out with little knowledge or understanding or what you were actually saying?

I'd say a wall around Hollywood or maybe the entire state of California might be required

Clarebelly

Leroy42 wrote: »

OK I get it now.

So you're line about Maggie T was made up. OK, I accept that I am not fully versed in the sayings of Streep.

Now we have gotten my obvious shortcomings out of the way lets go back to your statement.

Research then.
It's not just speech that is free.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So, I am only asking to what extent you want free speech to be controlled.

I don't want it controlled.
I just have a pain in my bollox with "actors" mouthing off.
Just act and gtf off the stage.
Yer man Cunningham from game of thrones too is a wonderful actor that I admire, but he never shuts up about Syria.

Jelle1880

You could just not listen to their speeches of course.

Leroy42

Clarebelly wrote: »

Research then.
It's not just speech that is free.

You want me to research a line that you made up? You failed to infer that you were being sarcastic.

Clarebelly wrote: »

I don't want it controlled.
I just have a pain in my bollox with "actors" mouthing off.
Just act and gtf off the stage.
Yer man Cunningham from game of thrones too is a wonderful actor that I admire, but he never shuts up about Syria.

You don't want it to be controlled, you just want some people (actors apparently) to not be allowed speak on certain issues.

Clarebelly

Again, my dog is ace at fetching a stick, but I draw the line at his advice on how to wire a plug.

ebbsy

That stupid trollop Streep should stick to acting.

And she is even no good at that.