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

Water John

Assange denied the stuff came from Russia. We now know it did.
He's an egotistical spoofer.

El_Duderino 09

Count Dooku wrote: »

[...] but democrats want hide own failures behind blaming Russia in hope that their yelling will distract attention from fact that Hillary was the worst candidate DNC ever had

I keep seeing this point that the investigation is just a deflection from Hillary losing the election. I think everyone has acknowledged that Hillary was an awful candidate. She was dreadful. The investigation is about finding out whether the current president collided with foreign powers to help him get elected. And if so, is the current president beholden to that foreign power.

It's one thing for trump to blame Obama for things as he was the last president, but blaming Clinton is scraping the bottom of the barrel. I'm sure any argument that blames Clinton is a good argument for trump supporters

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Water John wrote: »

Pro Trump people here, all looking for actual evidence.
Perhaps they should ask Trump that, every time he opens his mouth to spout non sense.

I'm no fan of Trump just to say. I just have a strong distrust of most of what comes out from the American deep state.

Water John wrote: »

Assange denied the stuff came from Russia. We now know it did.
He's an egotistical spoofer.

WikiLeaks have a far better track record in openness and transparency than the 'The 17 agencies that make up the US intelligence community'.

CMOTDibbler

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Well I don't know if it's true or not. I do know that Assange thinks Clinton wanted him dead though.

Ok, so could you provide evidence for this please? And again, that's not how you phrased it. You stated it as fact and not a belief of Assange's.

Billy86

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think everyone has acknowledged that Hillary was an awful candidate. She was dreadful.

But she sure is a handy device for deflection and sticking fingers in ears!

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think everyone has acknowledged that Hillary was an awful candidate. She was dreadful.

Not at all. Hillary would have been a slightly more warlike Obama. She won the popular vote by a huge margin. She was not at all a bad candidate, and would have made an OK president.

Which would have made her about a million times better than Trump, as even Trump voters are beginning to realize.

Billy86

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

WikiLeaks have a far better track record in openness and transparency than the 'The 17 agencies that make up the US intelligence community'.

I'm afraid not, not since they've been hiding their own connections to shady operators in the last year or so with their founder spouting lies and getting called on them. Pardon the pun, but they have taken a big, giant dump on the credibility they have to benefit their own agenda.

B_Wayne

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I'm no fan of Trump just to say. I just have a strong distrust of most of what comes out from the American deep state.



WikiLeaks have a far better track record in openness and transparency than the 'The 17 agencies that make up the US intelligence community'.

Wikileaks last year endangered numerous people by misrepresented leaks. The Erdogan leaks related more to general Turkish citizens. The Saudi leaks while leaking intelligence information tended to endanger the innocent. Eg Gay people, rape survivors, ill children. Basically last year they doxed a load of innocent people.

Data dumps that endanger the innocent irresponsible and in the case of wikileaks, it tends to be attention seeking rather than some desire for transparency. Their track record has gone out the window.

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high-ground/

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-posts-sensitive-medical-information-saudi-arabia

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

B_Wayne wrote: »

Wikileaks last year endangered numerous people by misrepresented leaks. The Erdogan leaks related more to general Turkish citizens. The Saudi leaks while leaking intelligence information tended to endanger the innocent. Eg Gay people, rape survivors, ill children. Basically last year they doxed a load of innocent people.

Data dumps that endanger the innocent irresponsible and in the case of wikileaks, it tends to be attention seeking rather than some desire for transparency. Their track record has gone out the window.

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high-ground/

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-posts-sensitive-medical-information-saudi-arabia

I don't agree with their policy of mass dumps. It is irresponsible of them. However, that doesn't suddenly turn them into a non credible organisation.

Kitsunegari

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not at all. Hillary would have been a slightly more warlike Obama. She won the popular vote by a huge margin. She was not at all a bad candidate, and would have made an OK president.

Which would have made her about a million times better than Trump, as even Trump voters are beginning to realize.

That's not true at all. Hillary was a terrible candidate. She won the popular vote but lost to Donald Trump. She lost to a man with no political experience because she's as crooked as they come in US politics. I don't think Trump supporters are supporting Clinton either. You're making that up.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Ok, so could you provide evidence for this please? And again, that's not how you phrased it. You stated it as fact and not a belief of Assange's.

Look, I put forward different scenarios of why so much was leaked on Clinton. None of which I really know to be true or not.
The positions I said that are possiblities were:
-The RNC might have better encryption on their servers
-A leaker from within the DNC
-Assange may have had an issue with Clinton personally as she wanted him dead
-Russia may have favoured Trump
-Russia may have colluded with Trump

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm afraid not, not since they've been hiding their own connections to shady operators in the last year or so with their founder spouting lies and getting called on them. Pardon the pun, but they have taken a big, giant dump on the credibility they have to benefit their own agenda.

Edward Snowden's way of releasing classified information is better no doubt about it.

Kitsunegari

B_Wayne wrote: »

Wikileaks last year endangered numerous people by misrepresented leaks. The Erdogan leaks related more to general Turkish citizens. The Saudi leaks while leaking intelligence information tended to endanger the innocent. Eg Gay people, rape survivors, ill children. Basically last year they doxed a load of innocent people.

Data dumps that endanger the innocent irresponsible and in the case of wikileaks, it tends to be attention seeking rather than some desire for transparency. Their track record has gone out the window.

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high-ground/

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-posts-sensitive-medical-information-saudi-arabia

Can you name one person that died or was threatened as a result of the WikiLeaks leak? I would be genuinely interested to see why people think this information shouldn't be released. I get that people are often disappointed with the content but people all of a sudden want to close WikiLeaks down. If they went through all of the information and masked some documents people would claim that they were doctored or altered somehow.

That is the collateral of releasing highly classified information. People are focusing on a narrow portion of the releases to attack Assange and WikiLeaks because of his support for Russia and others.

CMOTDibbler

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Look, I put forward different scenarios of why so much was leaked on Clinton. None of which I really know to be true or not.
The positions I said that are possiblities were:
-The RNC might have better encryption on their servers
-A leaker from within the DNC
-Assange may have had an issue with Clinton personally as she wanted him dead
-Russia may have favoured Trump
-Russia may have colluded with Trump

I don't have a problem with positing a number of possibilities. I took issue with a statement you made as fact: that she wanted him dead.

It's not a fact. You haven't even linked to anything to support it as a belief of Assange's, which you didn't state in the first place anyway.

That's what I'm trying to get at here. Is this statement provable in any way?

Water John

Let's be clear. We know, that Russia hacked DNC. Even DT admits that.
They gave it to wiki.

Assange bears no comparison to Snowden.
Wiki dumps as Wayne said, endangered innocent lives, to massage Assange's ego.

Leroy42

Ah here, all these people, and I include myself in that, looking for proof, it is just not going to happen.

Putin did not simply send Trump an e-mail with the subject "Collusion" in it.

Look how long it took to get Nixon.

But... there is a seemingly unending supply of circumstantial evidence to support the view that even if nothing happened on a certain date at a certain time, there is plenty to raise the real possibility that at the very least Russian assets were encouraged to help out.

ITs funny that HC never actually got charged with anything yet she is decried as the most corrupt ever, based on very loose evidence. Yet those same people seem to only want to look at the possibility of Trump when everything has been proven beyong a reasonable doubt and the man is in jail.

Why the double standard? Why 'accept' that HC is corrupt yet can even contemplate that Trump is. HC was seen as threat to the US, but those that believed she was corrupt, as if she ever actually got into power what would she do.

But now Trump has that power. It isn't a threat it is a real possibility at this point and yet it seems many are willing to jsut see how it goes.

If I was a US citizen, I would demand that everything should be focused on clearing up this matter, be it good or bad. The cancelling of hearings etc is simply not good enough. The US spends Billions every year on security, I'm guessing hundread of millions on counter intelligence and vetting etc and in the last few months they have had an NSA director who has been shown to be in the pockets of both Russia and Turkey, a previous campaign chairman deeply involved with Russia, a SOS who has been awards from Russia and the GOP do not seem even remotely concerned!

Zubeneschamali

Kitsunegari wrote: »

That's not true at all. Hillary was a terrible candidate. She won the popular vote

If she was such a terrible candidate, how come she got 3 million more votes than Trump?

She got more votes than any white man ever. She was a fine candidate.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I don't have a problem with positing a number of possibilities. I took issue with a statement you made as fact: that she wanted him dead.

It's not a fact. You haven't even linked to anything to support it as a belief od Assange's, which you didn't state in the first place anyway.

That's what I'm trying to get at here. Is this statement provable in any way?

As far as I know, this is WikiLeaks (and Assange's) stance on the issue. They have other tweets as well stating that Clinton wanted Assange dead.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562?lang=en

I also said in the same sentence that I said the above that 'Trump colluded with Russia', which I genuinely don't believe to be the case.

All I can go on right now is that 1) No concrete evidence has been put forward that Trump is in bed with Putin and 2) If there was tangible ties between the two, the NSA or whoever would already have concrete proof, and some of it would have been leaked into the public domain by now.

Leroy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Can you name one person that died or was threatened as a result of the WikiLeaks leak? I would be genuinely interested to see why people think this information shouldn't be released. I get that people are often disappointed with the content but people all of a sudden want to close WikiLeaks down. If they went through all of the information and masked some documents people would claim that they were doctored or altered somehow.

That is the collateral of releasing highly classified information. People are focusing on a narrow portion of the releases to attack Assange and WikiLeaks because of his support for Russia and others.

You are missing the point. Wikileaks original founding ideals were fine. Open and transparent. Realease the information to expose those trying to hoodwink the world.

But it is clear that since then, over the last few years, it has become politically focused. It has an agenda and leaks to suit that agenda.

Either you do it or you don't. You can't pick sides and remain as the 'honest' broker.

are you really trying to tel me that had Wikileaks really tried they couldn't have gotten Trumps tax returns for example?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If she was such a terrible candidate, how come she got 3 million more votes than Trump?

She got more votes than any white man ever. She was a fine candidate.

An inanimate carbon rod would have beaten Trump.

She was made to look like a right wing establishment elitist, by a New York golfing real estate billionaire!

She was the definition of a bad candidate.

Zubeneschamali

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

An inanimate carbon rod would have beaten Trump.

She was made to look like a right wing establishment elitist, by a New York golfing real estate billionaire!

She was the definition of a bad candidate.

Well, no, not unless your definition includes "gets more votes than the other candidate".

She lost. It happens, even to good candidates, especially after your party has had 2 terms, and the head of the FBI jumps in publicly to help your opponent.

I bet Comey is sorry as f*ck now!

CMOTDibbler

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

As far as I know, this is WikiLeaks (and Assange's) stance on the issue. They have other tweets as well stating that Clinton wanted Assange dead.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562?lang=en

And that's a story written on the flimsiest of backup with completely fabricated 'conversatons'. There is absolutely nothing backing those up (and I've read the entire novel before) in any way.

Now you can say that means Assange believed it, but as any fiction writer will tell you, belief isn't necessary to write a good story, just a good imagination. Btw, Assange was in London at the time this was supposed to have happened, do you really think he believed that the US would initiate a drone strike against London?

But it's good that you brought that up, because it shows exactly what kind of organisation Wikileaks has become.

Kitsunegari

People are entitled to question the motives and the evidence against Trump. I think most would agree that his bark if far bigger than his bite and he's made a lot of promises that he won't be able to keep. Just because you question the evidence against him doesn't make you a supporter. Some people are just tired of the partisan, mud-slinging contest that is US Politics. Some people realise that the problems are far bigger than Trump or Clinton. Just look at that health care act the American people nearly had rammed down their throats by Ryan and Trump?

Both parties are in need or dire overhaul yet they aren't able to reform internally when they are forever fighting against each other. The Congressional Oversight Committe are dealing with scandal after scandal in American politics yet nobody is still held accountable thanks to partisan politics.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Leroy42 wrote: »

You are missing the point. Wikileaks original founding ideals were fine. Open and transparent. Realease the information to expose those trying to hoodwink the world.

But it is clear that since then, over the last few years, it has become politically focused. It has an agenda and leaks to suit that agenda.

Either you do it or you don't. You can't pick sides and remain as the 'honest' broker.

are you really trying to tel me that had Wikileaks really tried they couldn't have gotten Trumps tax returns for example?

I can't fully disagree with the above.

But they have released literally millions of documents - and not one has been proven to be a fabrication on their behalf.

To now dismiss them completely is foolish. They have brought a (albeit still distorted) level of transparency to politics that has never been seen before. We're in unprecedented territory of what we know 'behind the curtain of power' in large part thanks to them.

Leroy42

His bark is bigger than his bite yet he tried to ram hone a health care act. Even without the Russia thing, Trump is to be proving even worse than anybody imagined.

He appears to have no control, no interest, no skill for the job, no understanding, his team is totally unqualified, he has surrounded himself by people who support him rather than have any abilities.

He has shown no ability to build a consensus and appears totally uninterested in bringing a divided country back together. He is a liar, a loose canon, appears not to take advice, is easily riled up, is thin skinned, openly rude to US allies.

He already almost created an issue over Taiwan before having to retreat in humiliation. He has made an enemy of Mexico, helped to create division in Nato and now has painted himself into a corner over North Korea.

Not only has he not created a blind trust, he is actively using his position to enrich himself through the taxpayer. He has used his position to help family members business.

I've got to go to bed now, thats all I can think of. That is all within the first 70 days!!!

Manic Moran

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If she was such a terrible candidate, how come she got 3 million more votes than Trump?

She got more votes than any white man ever. She was a fine candidate.

Yes, in the wrong places. It's like saying she jumped higher than the winning folk, in the long jump competition. If pure number of votes won were important, it's reasonable to presume that the opposition may have focused more attention on the population centers. Or, vice versa, had Clinton perhaps focused more on States where she ended up being vulnerable, her overall vote tally may have been less.

Yeh. Looks like the old guard are back. This "warrior" is a full on member of the neoconwar party.

Great.

Not sure if you're referring to McMaster or Bannon on this one. McMaster is highly regarded by pretty much everyone. Except some other generals who didn't like him speaking up and held up his promotions for a while.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/02/new_national_security_adviser_h_r_mcmaster_is_the_army_s_smartest_officer.html

MightyMandarin

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yes, in the wrong places. It's like saying she jumped higher than the winning folk, in the long jump competition. If pure number of votes won were important, it's reasonable to presume that the opposition may have focused more attention on the population centers. Or, vice versa, had Clinton perhaps focused more on States where she ended up being vulnerable, her overall vote tally may have been less.

This is true, she didn't campaign in Wisconsin for example. She took a lot of the rust belt for granted.

However, I think he was more defending the fact that if Hillary was this anti-christ character portrayed by the Republicans, how was she so popular among Americans in general?

I dislike her as much as anybody, but some of the hype around her (Pizzagate etc) was just rotten stuff altogether.

BabyCheeses

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I can't fully disagree with the above.

But they have released literally millions of documents - and not one has been proven to be a fabrication on their behalf.

To now dismiss them completely is foolish. They have brought a (albeit still distorted) level of transparency to politics that has never been seen before. We're in unprecedented territory of what we know 'behind the curtain of power' in large part thanks to them.

They release real documents, hence every said by Assange or Wikileaks must be true? I'm missing a link here. It's a common excuse but one which only works on the accuracy of what they release. If people were questioning if what they released were real then it would be a fair point, I haven't seen anyone dispute that.

Assange was caught giving two conflicting statements about info on Trump before. He had to be lying one of them, he couldn't have had information on Trump that contained no new information (must be that transparency you were talking about) while also having nothing.

B_Wayne

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Can you name one person that died or was threatened as a result of the WikiLeaks leak? I would be genuinely interested to see why people think this information shouldn't be released. I get that people are often disappointed with the content but people all of a sudden want to close WikiLeaks down. If they went through all of the information and masked some documents people would claim that they were doctored or altered somehow.

That is the collateral of releasing highly classified information. People are focusing on a narrow portion of the releases to attack Assange and WikiLeaks because of his support for Russia and others.

Can you give me a reason why the public need random people's medical records? Can you give me a reason why the addresses of gay men and rape survivors should be public knowledge? I have no data on if anyone did become a victim as a result however I imagine leaking the addresses of gay people in a notoriously homophobic country is not gonna help anyone.

Any form of basic ethics should occur, if there is potential for innocent people, many of whom are victims of a corrupt government. Then you do need to decide what is in the public's interest.

So go on, explain to me why any such information should be leaked? If they get access to a criminal record database, it's fair game to include the addresses of the victims of said criminals? Omitting information that endangers the innocent is thankfully something much of the press do engage in.

The Erdogan and Saudi leaks were 2 of their biggest leaks last year btw. It's a common issue with wikileaks. Innocent people are not acceptable "collateral" btw...

BabyCheeses wrote: »

They release real documents, hence every said by Assange or Wikileaks must be true? I'm missing a link here. It's a common excuse but one which only works on the accuracy of what they release. If people were questioning if what they released were real then it would be a fair point, I haven't seen anyone dispute that.

Assange was caught giving two conflicting statements about info on Trump before. He had to be lying one of them, he couldn't have had information on Trump that contained no new information (must be that transparency you were talking about) while also having nothing.

Weren't they tweeting implications that Clinton had Parkinsons? It was all so cringey and political... Strange apolitical group, dedicating selves to target a particular politician....

aloyisious

I find the political guests on Fox News strange: Senator Graham advising that Pres Trump should bomb Syria's military airfields to prevent any more gas attack incidents, so the host reminds him there are Russian aircraft based at the airfields. The Senator say's Trump should tell the Russians to get out first. The 2nd guest, a former US ambassador to the UN, said the same as the senator.... bomb the AIRFIELDS but tell the Russians first so they can get out to avoid being hit. Even if the Russian Govt decided to do as advised without telling their hosts, I reckon the Syrians might think something was up.

Meantime Don apparently (according to Fox) thinks Rice may have committed a crime, so some of the "lock her up" chanters are back in business, except it ain't Hilary now.

I agree with Leroy 42, Don is too fond of the soundbite, over-emphasizing the point he's making. They're his greatest boon and curse.

Mr.Micro

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If she was such a terrible candidate, how come she got 3 million more votes than Trump?

She got more votes than any white man ever. She was a fine candidate.

No she was not a good candidate. If she was so great, Trump would not have been left standing. She was beaten, narrowly by Trump when a better candidate would have beaten him by a mile.