President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Leroy42

I don't agree that it was a good answer. He should take responsibility.

Say something like;

despite the great plans put forward by his generals there is always a risk and the price of freedom is sometimes the ultimate sacrifice. He deeply regrets losing a great patriot such as Ryan, but that he is working with his generals to ensure lessons are learnt and that the intel they recovered will save others lives. Whilst that can never bring Ryan back to us, and the country is less for that, Ryan can sleep well knowing his sacrifice was for the greater good and that pride can help to fill the hole that he left behind.

But no, he took the cowards approach and blamed someone else. Not exactly leadership material. And the generals will take note of that, as was pointed out. Succeed and its down to Trump, fail and you are on your own

Professor Moriarty

demfad wrote: »

Come on. He is the commander in chief but he blamed his generals for that mans death. As well as a his death there was also about 30 civillians including about(?) 15 children under age of 13. Its blood boiling.
The story about the intel find is a lie also: The raid was to kill operatives,
There was no significant intel find., there was never meant to be.
The dead seal's Dad refused to meet Trump at the handover of the body, righty idendtifying it as a PR stunt. Infact he reckoned the whole operation was a PR stunt gone wrong.
There wont be an investigation into this, but the military will take notice.

Indeed. However, given the difficulty of the question and ignoring the rights and wrongs, I thought he handled it surprisingly well.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. However, given the difficulty of the question and ignoring the rights and wrongs, I thought he handled it surprisingly well.

Then the base is pretty low (not surprising given Trump) but that in itself is worrying as we should not be lower our standards to that of Trump

MadYaker

Amerika wrote: »

How can one object to it when reports indicate the leaks might very well be from some Obama appointees and holdovers?

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/obama-appointees-could-be-behind-leaks/

So some of the leaks MIGHT be from people that Obama appointed so Trump is right to blame Obama? Come off it. The leaks are happening because Trump isn't in control of his administration and that's his fault it's got nothing to do with Obama.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

So much wrong with this. A: the paper just had a theory that is shared by a political scientist and a chat show host. No actual reports say this. They are merely reporting on the possibility in a suggestive way.

Second even if it was Obama holdovers then Trump is still lying through his teeth. They are making their own decisions, Obama did not leave orders for them to leak to the press. Obama is not still issuing orders to them.

Laughable defense of the Trump's latest deflection and lie.

Applying a little common sense easily helps to explain things.

No president can have all the almost 900 appointees in place on day one. Why, you might ask. Because many of the top spots require Congressional hearings. And until the appointees are approved by Congress the spots either remain empty (which would be detrimental to running the country) or as has been the case historically – the spot remains filled (unless a person is fired) with the current appointee until the president, his administration, and his top picks can fill them.

Since the Democrats are slow jamming the approval process on Trump’s appointees, it leaves many of Obama holdovers in place.

There needs to be an FBI and congressional inquiry into where the leaks are coming from. But Obama pulled an underhanded ploy (which he would never have allowed during his time as POTUS) done days before leaving office, which will make any investigation extremely difficult to find leakers as of now. He expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html?_r=0

But if a leaker of classified information is determined (as in the Flynn leak), that person or people should get the maximum 10 years in jail as set out by law, and anyone else associated with the leaks, even if it leads all the way up to an ex-president, should join them behind bars.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/shocking-audio-obama-leading-ofa-shadow-government-take-trump/

edit...
How serious SIGINT is considered in the intelligence realm: You can be prosecuted under federal law for disclosing classified information, which includes leaking the contents of intercepted communications, as defined this way by 18 § 798 of the U.S. Code:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates … or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes …
any classified information … obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign
government … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.​

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Then the base is pretty low (not surprising given Trump) but that in itself is worrying as we should not be lower our standards to that of Trump

It was a difficult question no matter who was answering. My surprise was that he handled it well. I had expected the usual weird egotistical rant.

Leroy42

Amerika wrote: »

Applying a little common sense easily helps to explain things.

No president can have all the almost 900 appointees in place on day one. Why, you might ask. Because many of the top spots require Congressional hearings. And until the appointees are approved by Congress the spots either remain empty (which would be detrimental to running the country) or as has been the case historically – the spot remains filled (unless a person is fired) with the current appointee until the president, his administration, and his top picks can fill them.

Since the Democrats are slow jamming the approval process on Trump’s appointees, it leaves many of Obama holdovers in place.

There needs to be an FBI and congressional inquiry into where the leaks are coming from. But Obama pulled an underhanded ploy (which he would never have allowed during his time as POTUS) done days before leaving office, which will make any investigation extremely difficult to find leakers as of now. He expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html?_r=0

But if a leaker of classified information is determined (as in the Flynn leak), that person or people should get the maximum 10 years in jail as set out by law, and anyone else associated with the leaks, even if it leads all the way up to an ex-president, should join them behind bars.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/shocking-audio-obama-leading-ofa-shadow-government-take-trump/

But none of that deals with Trumps assertion that Obama is behind it.

demfad

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It was a difficult question no matter who was answering. My surprise was that he handled it well. I had expected the usual weird egotistical rant.

Who will be happy with his reply? The dead mans family? Dems? Republicans? Media? Trump supporters? As surely as you and I can see through it everyone else can.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It was a difficult question no matter who was answering. My surprise was that he handled it well. I had expected the usual weird egotistical rant.

But he kind of did.

Here is a partial transcript of his answer. (bold bits are mine)

"Mission was started before I got here"
"It was something they wanted to do"
"Came to see me and explained what they wanted to do"
"My generals are the most respected that we've had in decades, I believe"
"And they lost Ryan"
"I understand, as there is nothing worse but again this is something that they were looking at for a long time"

Now each of those quotes contains language that clearly attempts to distance himself from it. It was before I got here - also known as the Bart Simpson defence.
It was something they wanted to do - otherwise known as what could he do, they pushed for it, nothing to do with me.
HE repeats the They wanted line again, just to hammer it home. This was the generals game plan, he was out of the loop.
My Generals. Suddenly, despite basically saying that it is all their fault, suddenly they are his generals and with that they are the most respect in decades (he then sheepishly states "I believe" so at least even he knows that the claim is extremely dubious).
They lost Ryan - straight back to making sure he shares no part in the blame.
Then he goes on the say he understands the pain but stresses again it was before he got there so nothing to do with him.

How anybody can claim that any of the above is a decent answer is beyond me. It is self serving, throws the generals under a bus whilst at the same time trying to take credit for them being good generals and then when asked does he understand the pain and feeling or people again tries to recuse himself of any blame by claiming he had nothing to do with it.

A Little Pony

Trump must be having the time of his life! He is the most famous person on the planet, celebrities obsessed with him, **** actors at that and he still keeps going. A historic figure right in front of our very eyes and these people can't see it.

demfad

Ross responds to Russia links and Trump Cyprus bank accounts to senate

Actually, he tried I believe but teh whitehouse sat on it.

He received a letter with dozens of questions from leading democrtas about hsi ties to the powerful oligarchs who own the bank one (Rybolovlev) a personal friend of Putin and well known to Trump. He was also asked about the existence of Trump personal or shell accounts in the bank.

The whitehouse received the letter, didnt fancy releasing it (more Russia stuff).
Not to worry! Senate confirmed him anyway.

26000 Elephants

Igotadose wrote: »

Why not? He produced his tax returns. When will we see Trumps? You trust Trump?

Why? There is nothing to see, OK? Thats why the Republicans blocked a move to get him to publicise them.

Oh wait a minute. That kinda sounds.... suspicious?

(;))

https://twitter.com/stephenatap/status/836376408876335105

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Applying a little common sense easily helps to explain things.

No president can have all the almost 900 appointees in place on day one. Why, you might ask. Because many of the top spots require Congressional hearings. And until the appointees are approved by Congress the spots either remain empty (which would be detrimental to running the country) or as has been the case historically – the spot remains filled (unless a person is fired) with the current appointee until the president, his administration, and his top picks can fill them.

Since the Democrats are slow jamming the approval process on Trump’s appointees, it leaves many of Obama holdovers in place.

There needs to be an FBI and congressional inquiry into where the leaks are coming from. But Obama pulled an underhanded ploy (which he would never have allowed during his time as POTUS) done days before leaving office, which will make any investigation extremely difficult to find leakers as of now. He expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html?_r=0

But if a leaker of classified information is determined (as in the Flynn leak), that person or people should get the maximum 10 years in jail as set out by law, and anyone else associated with the leaks, even if it leads all the way up to an ex-president, should join them behind bars.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/shocking-audio-obama-leading-ofa-shadow-government-take-trump/

edit...
How serious SIGINT is considered in the intelligence realm: You can be prosecuted under federal law for disclosing classified information, which includes leaking the contents of intercepted communications, as defined this way by 18 § 798 of the U.S. Code:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates … or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes …
any classified information … obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign
government … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.​

Errr. None of this points to Obama being guilty in the slightest. That is still a complete assumption. In fact even the theory put forward by your previous lino said it might be people Obama hired as opposed to Obama so even the conspiracy theories have issues implicating Obama.

End conclusion: Trump lied (shocking I know). If he was not lying he would have provided evidence. He did not.

BabyCheeses

At least now things have moved onto that the leaks are real. Even the Trump supporters have tried to shift blame while ignoring the contents. Guess we can assume those anonymous sources are accurate then.

26000 Elephants

One thing I could never figure out was Mercers interest in Trump. I'm relieved to discover he has none, he appears to be a convenient fool to do his bidding. He started a super pac with the expressed goal of defeating Clinton but not caring by whom. : <from Bloomberg>

Robert Mercer, the GOP mega-donor and co-founder of Renaissance Technologies hedge fund who once backed Texas Senator Ted Cruz, is launching a super-PAC with a novel twist to get establishment-minded donors off the sidelines. The new project will informally be dubbed the “Defeat Crooked Hillary PAC” and, despite its Trumpian name, will focus solely on attacking Clinton, not boosting Trump. The idea is that conservative donors reluctant to support Trump can still donate in good conscience to a super-PAC that only attacks Clinton. “It’s a way to participate without [directly] supporting Trump,” says a source involved in the super-PAC’s creation.

Professor Moriarty

demfad wrote:

Who will be happy with his reply? The dead mans family? Dems? Republicans? Media? Trump supporters? As surely as you and I can see through it everyone else can.

Mainstream Republicans will probably be relieved. Trump supporters will believe anything he says. Everyone else will see it for what it is. Like I say, given the context and ignoring the truths and lies, he performed surprisingly well.

PopePalpatine

BabyCheeses wrote: »

At least now things have moved onto that the leaks are real. Even the Trump supporters have tried to shift blame while ignoring the contents. Guess we can assume those anonymous sources are accurate then.

No wonder Trump wants to ban anonymous sources in journalism...

...unless they're talking about Obama's birth cert. :pac:

Igotadose

Amerika wrote: »

Applying a little common sense easily helps to explain things.

/QUOTE]

1. He can't find candidates for his jobs - maybe the folks skilled in these jobs want nothing to do with the Trump admin. Ya think?
2. He's not getting under-secretaries to take his positions, as most of them refuse to divest of their conflicts of interest (see: underSecNav and under-SecArmy for the most recent examples). That'll slow things down
3. Don't deflect onto the Senate - they're putting the nominees through, following the same process that's always been done. Better cooperation between the WH and Senate would make this faster, like providing the information requested by the Senate panels up front (see: Rex Tillerson and Wilbur Ross, where the WH dragged on providing info)
4. Laura "Lifezette" Ingraham deflecting onto Obama works for Trump's base is about it, but it's just deflection after all.
5. The full team should've been in place by the lightly-attended inauguration. It wasn't. Heck, he's even reached out to game show hosts for jobs, as long as they met his criteria, and I'll have you guess what that might've included, given Trump's well-known hostility to minorities and blacks.

Can't wait till the address tonight. Watch the POTUS whine like a baby, I'm sure that'll make America great again in the views of... well... someone.

BabyCheeses

Wasn't there supposed to be huge pro Trump rallies the past few days?

I'm guessing they went well judging by the lack of links. Before the election crowd sizes were a major indicator. Things aren't looking good now.

Leroy42

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Wasn't there supposed to be huge pro Trump rallies the past few days?

I'm guessing they went well judging by the lack of links. Before the election crowd sizes were a major indicator. Things aren't looking good now.

I wouldn't read too much into that. It is always easier to get people agitated for change. WHat exactly would be the point of a Pro-Trump rally?

He won the election, his supporters made their voices heard already.

Amerika

Igotadose wrote: »

1. He can't find candidates for his jobs - maybe the folks skilled in these jobs want nothing to do with the Trump admin. Ya think?
2. He's not getting under-secretaries to take his positions, as most of them refuse to divest of their conflicts of interest (see: underSecNav and under-SecArmy for the most recent examples). That'll slow things down
3. Don't deflect onto the Senate - they're putting the nominees through, following the same process that's always been done. Better cooperation between the WH and Senate would make this faster, like providing the information requested by the Senate panels up front (see: Rex Tillerson and Wilbur Ross, where the WH dragged on providing info)
4. Laura "Lifezette" Ingraham deflecting onto Obama works for Trump's base is about it, but it's just deflection after all.
5. The full team should've been in place by the lightly-attended inauguration. It wasn't. Heck, he's even reached out to game show hosts for jobs, as long as they met his criteria, and I'll have you guess what that might've included, given Trump's well-known hostility to minorities and blacks.

Can't wait till the address tonight. Watch the POTUS whine like a baby, I'm sure that'll make America great again in the views of... well... someone.

Sounds like Fake News... a whole lot of FAKE NEWS! But I'm sure you have sources to back each of these up and prove me wrong.

listermint

The republicans are going to get hammmmmered next year.

Hammered

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

I wouldn't read too much into that. It is always easier to get people agitated for change. WHat exactly would be the point of a Pro-Trump rally?

He won the election, his supporters made their voices heard already.

Emm.... He had one himself the weekend before last
You tell me?

Professor Moriarty

listermint wrote:

The republicans are going to get hammmmmered next year.

I hope you're right. What do you think are the main reasons?

Igotadose

Amerika wrote: »

Sounds like Fake News... a whole lot of FAKE NEWS! But I'm sure you have sources to back each of these up and prove me wrong.

Easy
underSecNav turning it down this week? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Bilden#Secretary_of_the_Navy_nomination

Team not in place? Easy (one of many): http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/is-the-trump-team-ready-to-run-the-government.html

The only fake news, comes from the Trump WH, epicenter of lies, parroted by the Laura Ingrahams of the world on "Lifezette".

BabyCheeses

Leroy42 wrote: »

I wouldn't read too much into that. It is always easier to get people agitated for change. WHat exactly would be the point of a Pro-Trump rally?

He won the election, his supporters made their voices heard already.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/835465719970217984

Please never let me look at his twitter again. It was full of rabid idiots.

Leroy42

listermint wrote: »

Emm.... He had one himself the weekend before last
You tell me?

Yes, I know that but that was a rally to meet Trump. He is suggesting that people just hold a rally on their own. Totally different.

BabyCheeses wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/835465719970217984

Please never let me look at his twitter again. It was full of rabid idiots.

Just because he says he wants them to do it doesn't mean they have to. But not doing it doesn't prove they don't stand with him anymore.

The vote was in November, why would they start marching for something they already have

Professor Moriarty

BabyCheeses wrote:

Please never let me look at his twitter again. It was full of rabid idiots.

The comments under his tweet are great. Would give you hope...if that's not too Obamaish.

Gbear

listermint wrote: »

The republicans are going to get hammmmmered next year.

Hammered

If they didn't get hammered for grinding the government to a halt just to spite Obama why will anything change now?


A lot of the Democrats' voters are the first to go in the case of a low turnout.
Will the anti-Trump energy carry on for long enough to keep people interested?

I don't know how you can have any faith that will be the case when they've let their side down again and again and again.

listermint

Gbear wrote: »

If they didn't get hammered for grinding the government to a halt just to spite Obama why will anything change now?


A lot of the Democrats' voters are the first to go in the case of a low turnout.
Will the anti-Trump energy carry on for long enough to keep people interested?

I don't know how you can have any faith that will be the case when they've let their side down again and again and again.

The democrat's got hammered for not taking the voters problems seriously.

Trump has done the same.

They will get hammered for the EPA stuff about their dogs and cats.

They will get hammered for the healthcare stuff.

They will get hammered for the education stuff.

They will get hammered for the wall Street stuff.

They will get hammered for the Russian stuff.

They will get hammered for the lack of wall stuff.

They will get hammered for failing to deliver the earth moon and stars.

They are already getting hammered at home this doesn't appear to be ebbing.