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

aloyisious

It's obvious now Don doesn't understand the need to keep classified knowledge under his hat when [as head of state] he's made aware of it and the damage risks inherent to US and Allies long term interests by revealing it, and what is safe to reveal as it won't affect US national interests and the interests of those other nations providing the US with vital classified intelligence information. He's not intelligent enough to understand the difference, unless of course if the leaker is not named Donald J Trump. He's relying on a 1988 USSC ruling on Presidential powers under the constitution to make material classified. Some people have argued that the ruling meant there is an apposite right to de-classify material as well.

aloyisious

mallso wrote: »

anyone else have a bad feeling that the 100 billion dollar arms deal is gonna make it's way to the streets of europe

End-user certification should prevent that, if the item is large enough. It's probable that ammo parts of the deal might be under licence stuff or handing over existing stock [most of which will have use-by dates] helping to ensure the arms industry is kept busy re-supplying the US military with GOOD goods.

Billy86

Overheal wrote: »

Which is baffling, he did the same in his interview with Hannity: simultaneously boasting the protection of their sources, while giving Seth Rich a posthumous wink and a nudge.

So either two things are happening: he is using Seth Rich's death as a smokescreen to protect bonafide sources, or he is throwing a dead source under the bus. Either possibility is equally tasteless, and I wonder what he's playing at. Surely informants for wikileaks would be less inclined to leak to them knowing that if something should happen to them, Wikileaks may get their families into trouble. I'm bothered he would try to inject himself into the story like that, especially if he's not going to be clear.

Or the third: he's lying-without-lying about Seth Rich to further his own agenda. Transparency though, right?

Water John

23 Million loose health insurance under Don's new bill. 1$ trillion reliefs mainly to the rich.
GOP Reps and Senators will face a lot of angst.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/24/trump-republican-healthcare-plan-cbo

Itssoeasy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6OVwwS5vBo

I don't know what people think of Keith olbermann but I like him as he calls a spade a spade with regard to trump.

mcmoustache

Overheal wrote: »

Excuse my French, but that ****ing piece of **** Donald Trump bragged to the Philippines about exactly how many nuclear subs we operate off the coast of North Korea. The Philippines then leaked the transcript out, so now everyone knows it.

This is not at all okay. His flapping mouth will start a war. The Pentagon is PISSED

https://theintercept.com/2017/05/23/read-the-full-transcript-of-trumps-call-with-philippine-president-rodrigo-duterte/

Your french doesn't capture how serious this is. These areas get swept by chinese and russian signals intelligence. Now they have known locations and can match this information with their otherwise noisy signals. This could allow them to track US subs.

mcmoustache

Just to add, here's the transcript of his conversation with Duterte. Anyone want to defend this?

Also, Israel now changes its policy on how it shares intel with the US because blabbermouth outed its source to the Russians who support Iran in the middle east. I wonder how the alt-right can square that circle.

Professor Moriarty

mcmoustache wrote: »

Just to add, here's the transcript of his conversation with Duterte. Anyone want to defend this?

Also, Israel now changes its policy on how it shares intel with the US because blabbermouth outed its source to the Russians who support Iran in the middle east. I wonder how the alt-right can square that circle.

Much of the alt-right couldn't find Europe on a map let alone Russia, Iran and Israel. They just want that fùcling wall built and America great again.

BuilderPlumber

mcmoustache wrote: »

Just to add, here's the transcript of his conversation with Duterte. Anyone want to defend this?

Also, Israel now changes its policy on how it shares intel with the US because blabbermouth outed its source to the Russians who support Iran in the middle east. I wonder how the alt-right can square that circle.

The relations between a lot of these countries are not as black and white as we are lead to believe. Sneaky deals go on the whole time between countries that are supposed to hate each other.

Overheal

Well this story developed quick this evening,

A special election for a house seat in Montana had been a huge toss up and the election is tomrrow/Thursday. GOP candidate Greg Gianforte was holding a rock the vote event and during prep, a Daily Mail reporter caught up with him to ask about today's bombshell CBO report that projects over 26M extra people will eventually be uninsured because of the AHCA.

You can hear the accounts for yourself, but initially the reporters tweets claimed he was body slammed by Gianforte, rather than provide a direct response to the questions. His glasses were reportedly broken as well. A fellow reporter outside got an obscured look at his feet as he hit the floor. The audio tape was released where Gianforte expresses animosity against reporters, before telling the reporter he has to leave and his aides chime this.

Shortly thereafter police arrive on scene, ambulances, and the **** goes viral. The eye witness outside tweets her account within a few minutes. Gianfortes campaign takes a full two hours to decide what their side of the story is, and release a statement blaming 'pushy liberal reporters' for the incident, and said the reporter grabbed Gianforte by the wrist and they both went to the ground.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoePerticone/status/867539075590488065/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.heavy.com%2Fwp-content%2Fthemes%2Fvip%2Fheavy%2Famp%2Fframe.max.amp.html%3F1495054386926

However, after a few hours of the internet going crazy and people trying to blame the reporter, another eyewitness report was published, from Alicia Acuna of Fox News, who has been with the outlet since 1997. She completely shot down this narrative, with her direct account:

Faith, Keith and I arrived early to set up for the interview in a room adjacent to another room where a volunteer BBQ was to take place. As the time for the interview neared, Gianforte came into the room. We exchanged pleasantries and made small talk about restaurants and Bozeman.

During that conversation, another man — who we now know is Ben Jacobs of The Guardian — walked into the room with a voice recorder, put it up to Gianforte's face and began asking if he had a response to the newly released Congressional Budget Office report on the American Health Care Act. Gianforte told him he would get to him later. Jacobs persisted with his question. Gianforte told him to talk to his press guy, Shane Scanlon.

At that point, Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him. Faith, Keith and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the reporter. As Gianforte moved on top of Jacobs, he began yelling something to the effect of, "I'm sick and tired of this!"

Jacobs scrambled to his knees and said something about his glasses being broken. He asked Faith, Keith and myself for our names. In shock, we did not answer. Jacobs then said he wanted the police called and went to leave. Gianforte looked at the three of us and repeatedly apologized. At that point, I told him and Scanlon, who was now present, that we needed a moment. The men then left.

To be clear, at no point did any of us who witnessed this assault see Jacobs show any form of physical aggression toward Gianforte, who left the area after giving statements to local sheriff's deputies.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/24/greg-gianforte-fox-news-team-witnesses-gop-house-candidate-body-slam-reporter.html

Gianforte's departure was over an hour earlier than originally scheduled.

The county sherif also made his own press release, noting that he had an existing $250 donation to Gianfortes campaign, in respect to disclosure, but that Gianforte had been formally charged with misdemeanor assault.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BCAppelbaum/status/867601490508222465/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.heavy.com%2Fwp-content%2Fthemes%2Fvip%2Fheavy%2Famp%2Fframe.max.amp.html%3F1495054386926

In an already tight race, to be a house representative, his opponent may as well already order office furniture. Snapping under basic questioning, assaulting a journalist, and then lying about what happened - in print no less. Canvassers for his opponents campaign report that this development has been swinging voters away from Gianforte.

Peregrinus

Overheal wrote: »

. . . In an already tight race, to be a house representative, his opponent may as well already order office furniture. Snapping under basic questioning, assaulting a journalist, and then lying about what happened - in print no less. Canvassers for his opponents campaign report that this development has been swinging voters away from Gianforte.

Before this story broke, more than 250,000 people had already voted early by mail - you can do that in Montana - and that's likely to be more than half of the eventual turnout, so this episode will have less effect on the outcome than it would have had if it happened a week ago. If I were the Dem candidate I wouldn't be thumbing through the Ikea catalogue just yet.

Igotadose

Trump. Sigh. Can't even sign the guest book at Yad Vashem without looking like an eejit.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-yad-vashem-holocaust-memorial-guestbook-note-israel-barack-obama-speech-us-president-a7752541.html

This really isn't that hard a thing to do. It's a moving place. Just sign your name if you can't think of anything appropriate to say.

PopePalpatine

mcmoustache wrote: »

Just to add, here's the transcript of his conversation with Duterte. Anyone want to defend this?

Also, Israel now changes its policy on how it shares intel with the US because blabbermouth outed its source to the Russians who support Iran in the middle east. I wonder how the alt-right can square that circle.

They're probably circlejerking about "triggurrd Joooos".

Hank Scorpio

ECO_Mental wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/334983-hannity-loses-advertiser-over-pushing-seth-rich-conspiracy-theory%3Famp

Looks like a company is pulling ads from Hannity. That was the start of the end of ORiely so hopefully it will be the end of Hannity.

Yes, let's get every commentator with opposing views off the air in the name of diversity. Hannity has always argued for free speech even when people attack him, you don't have to like him to respect that, I'm indifferent towards him. And before you say he's promoting conspiracy theories, look at the shíte Maddow, Matthews and others have been spouting for the last few months about Russian murders and Putin organising the gas attack in Syria.

As far as Assange goes, he's duping people into the Seth Rich angle, it would be one of the biggest Political scandals in history, there's zero chance someone like him with a God complex would sit on it. He could leak proof somehow and save face. I wanted to believe it, especially when there was reports citing an ex Wikileaks editor being the contact and the numbers of emails etc, but I feel deep down it's bs and the story has been retracted. I really want to believe though

Water John

Whoever in US is leaking info on the Manchester bombing, is not doing anyone any favours.
Can't see, any public good or right to know, argument.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Yes, let's get every commentator with opposing views off the air in the name of diversity. Hannity has always argued for free speech even when people attack him, you don't have to like him to respect that, I'm indifferent towards him. And before you say he's promoting conspiracy theories, look at the shíte Maddow, Matthews and others have been spouting for the last few months about Russian murders and Putin organising the gas attack in Syria.

As far as Assange goes, he's duping people into the Seth Rich angle, it would be one of the biggest Political scandals in history, there's zero chance someone like him with a God complex would sit on it. He could leak proof somehow and save face. I wanted to believe it, especially when there was reports citing an ex Wikileaks editor being the contact and the numbers of emails etc, but I feel deep down it's bs and the story has been retracted. I really want to believe though

Hannitty is flat out lying for views or a nutter. One or the other. Fox news retracted that story because it was complete and utter bull. An apology is the least that Rich's family can expect for what Hannitty put them through. Instead he gave some bull I am just not allowed to say it but I still believe (with 0 actual evidence) and so should you.

The man has the right to say it, that is free speech. It still means he is a piece of scum for saying it.

Calina

Water John wrote: »

Whoever in US is leaking info on the Manchester bombing, is not doing anyone any favours.
Can't see, any public good or right to know, argument.

It has the possible benefit of de-legitimising other leaks though, the sort of leaks for example which have not cast the current White House admin in a good light.

It does reflect badly on the US. That being said, it is not the first time. The US also leaked the contents of the CVR of the Germanwings plane which crashed in the Alps without clearance from the French investigators.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

The man has the right to say it, that is free speech. It still means he is a piece of scum for saying it.

He should have dropped it when the article got pulled. Kim Dot Com is a bs artist of the highest degree.

I do hope one day we get to see evidence of how Wikileaks got the dumps, it doesn't help things when people like Schiff go on TV and stop short of confirming it was the Russians who hacked Podesta. Then there's the whole FBI DNC server thing.

It's highly likely it was the Russians if the reports are to be believed, but there is lingering doubt there, at least in my mind.

Captain_Crash

Water John wrote: »

Whoever in US is leaking info on the Manchester bombing, is not doing anyone any favours.
Can't see, any public good or right to know, argument.

Police in Manchester are not going to share anymore information with the U.S. because of these leaks. It really says a lot about the current situation in the W.H. that following a terror attack the U.S's biggest ally isn't sharing any intelligence with them

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40040210

Trent Houseboat

Hank Scorpio wrote:

Yes, let's get every commentator with opposing views off the air in the name of diversity. Hannity has always argued for free speech even when people attack him, you don't have to like him to respect that, I'm indifferent towards him.

Who mentioned diversity? Is that some sort of right-winger knee-jerk strawman. Someone doesn't like person X, must be the SJWehrmacht.
Couldn't be a company exercising their free speech to not spend their money to support a creep who's exploiting the murder of a young man with what at this stage you have to assume he knows are lies. Done in an attempt to distract credulous idiots from the ineptitude of a person and party that creep supports?

You don't have to like it, but you should respect it.

Hank Scorpio

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Who mentioned diversity? Is that some sort of right-winger knee-jerk strawman. Someone doesn't like person X, must be the SJWehrmacht.
Couldn't be a company exercising their free speech to not spend their money to support a creep who's exploiting the murder of a young man with what at this stage you have to assume he knows are lies. Done in an attempt to distract credulous idiots from the ineptitude of a person and party that creep supports?

You don't have to like it, but you should respect it.

Making his sponsors public and pressuring them to withdraw in coordinated attacks is scum. Trump's young son has been viciously attacked by the media, was that not for political gain?

The definition of creep is David Brock.

Trent Houseboat

Hank Scorpio wrote:

Making his sponsors public and pressuring them to withdraw in coordinated attacks is scum.

No, it's actually freedom of speech.
I know people nowadays associate the right of a professional contrarian with whom they agree to verbally abuse trans children as the epitome of freedom of speech(until he says something they disagree with), but there are other facets to it.
And not giving money to a business who you disagree with is one such facet.

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Yes, let's get every commentator with opposing views off the air in the name of diversity. Hannity has always argued for free speech even when people attack him, you don't have to like him to respect that, I'm indifferent towards him. And before you say he's promoting conspiracy theories, look at the shíte Maddow, Matthews and others have been spouting for the last few months about Russian murders and Putin organising the gas attack in Syria.

As far as Assange goes, he's duping people into the Seth Rich angle, it would be one of the biggest Political scandals in history, there's zero chance someone like him with a God complex would sit on it. He could leak proof somehow and save face. I wanted to believe it, especially when there was reports citing an ex Wikileaks editor being the contact and the numbers of emails etc, but I feel deep down it's bs and the story has been retracted. I really want to believe though

Free speech lets you air your opinions, it does not give you the right to make up things as fact.

Hannity presented this, and other stories, as facts. He also steadfastly refuses to deal with facts that don't suit his agenda.

Free speech is a right, but it also carries a responsibility. IMO that is the problem at the moment. Many people take the right to free speech and none of the responsibility that goes along with it.

Peregrinus

Hannity is free to say what he wants. His freedom to say these things does not extent to a right to be paid for saying them.

People who disagree with Hannity are free to say so. People who feel that Hannity should not be paid for saying the things he says are free to say that too. People who feel inclined to boycott businesses that pay Hannity to say what he says are free to say that they would boycott such business, and are free to say that others should do so too.

Freedom of speech is a two-way thing.

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Making his sponsors public and pressuring them to withdraw in coordinated attacks is scum. Trump's young son has been viciously attacked by the media, was that not for political gain?

The definition of creep is David Brock.

I agree that any talk of his son should be off limits, there is no need, no justification and it serves no purpose. To do it in a negative way is beyond the pale.

However, whilst I feel sorry for the child, his father is the one promoting this very type of discourse. He has said many things about Mexicans, muslims etc that I am sure cause angst and problem for those people.

Again, it shows that free speech carries responsibility. Trump is allowed to say those things, but the outcome is that others now feel emboldened to repeat them. It seems some on the left have taken that POV as well.

So when Trump is explaining to his upset son that people are mean and they shouldn't be writing about him like that, I trust he will also include the fact that he is POTUS in large part because of that exact type of language and that he has been one of the main reasons for people to feel that this is acceptable.

Kitsunegari

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

No, it's actually freedom of speech.
I know people nowadays associate the right of a professional contrarian with whom they agree to verbally abuse trans children as the epitome of freedom of speech(until he says something they disagree with), but there are other facets to it.
And not giving money to a business who you disagree with is one such facet.

Yeah, but that's not actually what has happened here. what actually has happened is that liberal lobbyists like Media Matters post up the sponsors of shows like Hannity to put pressure on the sponsors to back out. That's a witch hunt.

It's another form of censorship that the liberal lobbyists don't like to admit to. It's no different from the 'Berkeley anti-fascist fascists' who try to suppress free speech that they don't agree with by rioting.

But go ahead and justify it all you want. It's still censorship.

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

Free speech lets you air your opinions, it does not give you the right to make up things as fact.

Hannity presented this, and other stories, as facts. He also steadfastly refuses to deal with facts that don't suit his agenda.

Free speech is a right, but it also carries a responsibility. IMO that is the problem at the moment. Many people take the right to free speech and none of the responsibility that goes along with it.

You could say the same thing about pretty much every political commentator. The Russian collusion story is being presented as fact when there's no evidence, or other examples like Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC talking about Russian hitmen murdering Politicians to cover for Trump, or Putin ccoordinating the Syrian gas attack to get people off Trumps back. Look at the air times on CNN/MSNBC when the bomb went off in Manchester, they ignored it for the most part and kept going with the Trump story.

Also where did he state it as fact? A Fox affiliate ran the original story where an investigator said there was evidence Rich had contact with Wikileaks, then the next day Foxnews.com published an article saying an ex Wikileaks editor received x amounts of emails from Rich. Hannity picked it up, his problem was not dropping it when the article got revoked, stupid yes, but laughable that he should be fired. He's a self stated commentator, not a reporter.

Kitsunegari

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

You could say the same thing about pretty much every political commentator. The Russian collusion story is being presented as fact when there's no evidence, or other examples like Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC talking about Russian hitmen murdering Politicians to cover for Trump, or Putin ccoordinating the Syrian gas attack to get people off Trumps back.

Also where did he state it as fact? A Fox affiliate ran the original story where an investigator said there was evidence Rich had contact with Wikileaks, then the next day Foxnews.com published an article saying an ex Wikileaks editor received x amounts of emails from Rich. Hannity picked it up, his problem was not dropping it when the article got revoked, stupid yes, but laughable that he should be fired. He's a self stated commentator, not a reporter.

Why do you bother? The Russians are coming. Any story against Trump is assumed to be true and any story that goes against that narrative is false. /thread

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

You could say the same thing about pretty much every political commentator.

Yes you could, and you and others called it fake news when the story doesn't suit you.

Why are you, and Trump, allowed to dismiss huge parts of the media as biased and fake yet when people call Fox news and Hannity out suddenly its all about freedom of speech?

Kitsunegari

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes you could, and you and others called it fake news when the story doesn't suit you.

Why are you, and Trump, allowed to dismiss huge parts of the media as biased and fake yet when people call Fox news and Hannity out suddenly its all about freedom of speech?

Becuase I don't see anyone on here supporting censorship against other media sources. What part of that don't you understand? What does dismissing a CNN story have to do with Media Matters publishing a list of Hannity sponsors? Do you really not see any difference between the two?

You're continually engaging in useless strawman arguments in here.