• Moose
  • Announcements

    • Dirktator

      March goal: We're almost there!   03/20/2017

      Hi Community! We're almost there for our March goals!  I just wanted to keep the momentum going so if you are able to help, please donate and get some gifts in exchange! Thanks so much to those who have helped out this month, we really appreciate it.
Ln X

President Donald Trump and his Administration

421 posts in this topic

Yeah it may be American politics, but Trump has really changed the political scene and I feel it requires its own separate post to chart and discuss the events and changes during a Trump Presidency. Also the US Presidential Election thread is going in all kinds of wild tangents, I've been posting quite a few of them but Trump winning has opened up a real can of worms and it is a really massive change. That thread needs a continuation once Trump has been inaugurated.

This thread is not only about President Trump and his administration, it is also about Obama's legacy, and of course the myriad issues which come with Trump and his election promises. There needs to be a thread on its own to comment about: US foreign policy, Obama's legacy, what will happen to the Clintons, the Mexico/US border, how Trump will "drain the swamp", the future for Liberals and SJWs, the social changes taking place in the US and much, much more.

So for the first post, Trump has a message about his day-one executive actions.

 

 

Militant Radical, Fantozzi, APSMS, Larks2242, Sabretooth78, OcramsRzr, LexusInfernus and all the other usual suspects- feel free to pop in and post!

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping he chooses Sheriff Joe Arpaio as Head of homeland, Senator Jim Inhofe as Secretary of Energy and the Terminator as Sec of state.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Larks2242 said:

I'm hoping he chooses Sheriff Joe Arpaio as Head of homeland, Senator Jim Inhofe as Secretary of Energy and the Terminator as Sec of state.

For me I fancy Sheriff David Clarke as Head of Homeland Security, this man is direct, down-to-earth and does not take nonsense. Also the Terminator as Secretary of State is inspired, the memes alone would be worth it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched that video.

Wow. I mean, he's no Obama when it comes to speeches or going over pre-written stuff, but those were some pretty strong statements, whether you agree with them or not (or whether you think these statements/plans are feasible or not either).

To be honest, I had a lot of hope for Obama, and he was a real let down in so many ways. I have, essentially, almost no expectations for Trump. Many have said that the disenfranchised that voted for Trump were essentially giving a giant middle finger to the "ruling" political elite in Washington; I kinda feel that was the only reason to support him, aside from keeping Hillary out of office (remember that I didn't vote--not that it would have mattered anyways in Blue California, no matter who I voted for).

Ooh, Secretarinator of State? Arnold Schwarzenegger for Sec of State? Yes Please (who cares about the practicality of things and whether he'd be effective or not)!

Well, I guess Rudy Giuliani would shake things up too (he deserves it more than someone like Mitt Romney), but Terminator for SoS would be...well, can you imagine every time he had to leave the table during a treaty conference or a summit meeting?

 

 

 

 

I'll be back.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ln X said:

For me I fancy Sheriff David Clarke as Head of Homeland Security, this man is direct, down-to-earth and does not take nonsense. Also the Terminator as Secretary of State is inspired, the memes alone would be worth it.

Sniper fire in Bosnia? Get to tha Choppa!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, APSMS said:

Ooh, Secretarinator of State? Arnold Schwarzenegger for Sec of State? Yes Please (who cares about the practicality of things and whether he'd be effective or not)!

Well, I guess Rudy Giuliani would shake things up too (he deserves it more than someone like Mitt Romney), but Terminator for SoS would be...well, can you imagine every time he had to leave the table during a treaty conference or a summit meeting?

 

 

 

 

I'll be back.

I think Arnold is intimidating enough to get the job done without having to negotiate, Remember Trump said there will be so much winning America will be sick of winning, Need to build a team to ensure that happens,,  Need to find spots for John MacAfee and Dan Bilzerian as well. 

 

 

Secretary of the first Beard of the US anyone?

CWXhOMvUsAEJVB9.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ln X said:

Fantozzi

Shouldn't become personal here, right. But you are a fair and a really large-minded  conversationalist (? - I'm unsure about the right use of words I pick up from the dictionary).

I'm not that familiar with american politics - which shurely means something beyond media and the writings on the web and in newspapers, but instead also knowing a country by own experience, by own eyesight.Without seeing/knowing f.e. social problems by your own - you always can only argue blindly as media can't substitute experience. And the most reliable knowledge is the knowledge life's teaching.

Therefore I can only speak about certain - commonly things, like Mr. Trumps haircut - but don't think I'm much of a help to discuss the more complex, inner affairs - the real politics .. the practical, the non-rhetoric but the one that happens.

I even think It's inappropriate.

During the election battle several things attracted my interests - the dynamics how opinion is formed how 'facts' or truth are a result of the believe of majorities or a result of how majorities are formed - the great impact Trumps behavior had on american societies. How the tension and combativeness he showed affected a whole country. This shure was interesting and shure will touch me/us again ... as next year there will be elections too in germany and many people think partially we will see the same here.

And some people say these are signs of a 'postfactual era'.

But now, turning from election battle to form a gouvernement - it's like you can't remain in this 'postfactual' state, you have to retrun to the facts. Which would mean the talking about an 'era' is nonsense - it's just another buzzword strongly bound to media and the realities media creates.

For me, for now - Trump is only a product of media, a figure in a constructed play. The play is over now. The curtain did fall.

Now people discuss the play. What did they see on the screen? How they discuss it it's obvious they where highly impassionated by this play.

They were so impassionated they confuse play and reality. I read about children in school mobbing each other because of Trump.

And parents - instead of asking why Trump occupates suddenly places where normally pop music, clothes, the type of mobile phone etc. is forming peer groups - joining.

It's like people are collective drunk. And I don't talk about Trump supporters - but all, all are some kind of drunk from Trump, Trump-adversaries the same. And this is something really interesting as all what did happen so far happened in media - no where else.

Make this aware - all what happened until now happened only in media. There was no real politics done by Trump. That's all to come.

It's like having seeing Jack Nicholson and Rene Russo in a movie and the next day children in school fight who was the good one and who was the evil one.

Now, to forget what happend during the election battle with the people, and to return to 'normal business' as soon as possible - and why? just to calm down all the quick temper - that imho is another sad sign of shallowness.

You said it's necessary to do some cold and hard analysis.

But then - what caused this rage affecting even political naive children, affecting the language - putting more and more agression in the words just to 'beat' opponents?

This election battle changed you. And I don't talk about politics. Trust me, as I'm looking from the outside, as I followed this without beeing a voter or having a special interest in one of the candidates. Don't know - and I don't believe - this changing in behavior, of intemperence will last. It will past.

But aren't you worried that it was so easy to rouse all this emotions?

This so highly inflamableness of masses - by things only happened in media - for me this is still scary.

It's really not Trump. I'm worried about.

But it's the american people.

[Edit]

Again about 'cold and hard analysis' - in german they use the word 'sober', the opposite of beeing drunk, for thinking/acting rational. How this went lost - and even by really serious people -  still wows me. At a certain point Mrs. Clinton was 'guilty' and she was so absolutely and fundamental 'guilty'. And this 'being guilty' was much more important than the 'crime'. I didn't read much analysis on that crime. On trial and court and this legal stuff. Was there any trial? I didn't find something about. There was done this equation accuse = guilt. Which in my country would be called lynch law.

[Edit2]

The same thing happened after 9/11 when Bush called for war on terrorism. There was no cold and hard analysis. There was some kind of fever and enthusiasm - let's hunt them, let's take revenge, let's kick them in their back.

Were these emotions or rational analysis?

How this was judged by then? How it is judged today?

It's the same state now. Euphoria is good for hormones but bad for thoughts. That's what you mean by 'cold and hard', don't you? 

At the end there is the possibility to abuse rationalism. The philosopher Max Horkheimer wrote a book about that. You know, when you look back in history rationalism was an instrument to overcome convictions. Not only convictions of a certain type, like religious convictions or political convictions - but any kind of convictions. Therefore science can't have any truth (or it would create convictions itself). Science can only say what is a valid sentence and what is no valid sentence under certain conditions. Science is no religion. The sentences or natural laws don't demand truth like the human, the social laws - but are there to be proofed and to be subjects to our understanding. To think there's any truth in rationalism is almost the same as a religious believe. Or - perhaps - one could say: the truth of science is that kowledge is always in movement. So one had to say if rationalism is used to build up convictions it is only an abuse of rationalism. If you use rationalism to overcome convictions it is the right use. But most of the time, and especially in politics, data - like statistics - is only used to defend one conviction against the other, and often, very funny, the same data is used the same time to disprove and to aprove the same conviction. The problem remains always. Rationalism says in Mexico there are living 150.000 Millionaires. But to say these are too many or to say these are quite view - this is beyond the scope of rationalism.

To get a meaning from data you'll need another instrument. Science doesn't work to get meaning from data. Science can only provide as rationalism can only provide - they can validate impression, perception, cognition. But it can't validate meaning. At least not without abuse. 

 

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fantozzi said:

At the end there is the possibility to abuse rationalism. The philosopher Max Horkheimer wrote a book about that. You know, when you look back in history rationalism was an instrument to overcome convictions. Not only convictions of a certain type, like religious convictions or political convictions - but any kind of convictions. Therefore science can't have any truth (or it would create convictions itself). Science can only say what is a valid sentence and what is no valid sentence under certain conditions. Science is no religion. The sentences or natural laws don't demand truth like the human, the social laws - but are there to be proofed and to be subjects to our understanding. To think there's any truth in rationalism is almost the same as a religious believe. Or - perhaps - one could say: the truth of science is that kowledge is always in movement. So one had to say if rationalism is used to build up convictions it is only an abuse of rationalism. If you use rationalism to overcome convictions it is the right use. But most of the time, and especially in politics, data - like statistics - is only used to defend one conviction against the other, and often, very funny, the same data is used the same time to disprove and to aprove the same conviction. The problem remains always. Rationalism says in Mexico there are living 150.000 Millionaires. But to say these are too many or to say these are quite view - this is beyond the scope of rationalism.

To get a meaning from data you'll need another instrument. Science doesn't work to get meaning from data. Science can only provide as rationalism can only provide - they can validate impression, perception, cognition. But it can't validate meaning. At least not without abuse. 

 

Rationalism hast to be moral. After all, a person can justify anything with logic. That's about all I can say about that.

///

As for the Trump phenomenon, I think it was largely created by the media; they simply had to respond to every outlandish thing he did and gave him free airtime.

The internet played large part too. It's very easy to find out facts about the backgrounds of candidates which would either not turn up in the news or only appear once or twice. The internet is brilliant in that sense- the past cannot be so easily forgotten about. This is why the emails and Benghazi dogged Hillary so much.

As for Hillary and the various scandals, well, put it this way; if she were running for prime minister of the UK then she would never have gotten this far in an election. British politicians will fall on their swords of reputation if a scandal, with some actual scandalous stuff, happens. Far less so in the USA.

I strongly believe Trump and his administration's policies will become more moderate as Trump's term chugs along, but what interests me is which way the liberals and SJWs will turn. Will they go more left wing? Will they denounce the Democrats and form their own party- the much fabled third party in US politics? Or will some of them get militant and create a left wing populist movement just as contagious as Trump's movement?

Context went out of the window though and you are right on the money about how inflammable this election was- so very little said about policies. Particularly Trump's "Wall". Yet there is already border fencing and barriers across large parts of the US/Mexico border. The US government, during Obama's administration, deported 2.5 million illegal immigrants. Where is the mass cries of outrage about that?

Context is so important. Lying by omission destroys context and the MSM during this election were so full of omission that they helped to create this hysteria about Trump.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usual suspect checking in!

1 hour ago, Ln X said:

I strongly believe Trump and his administration's policies will become more moderate as Trump's term chugs along, but what interests me is which way the liberals and SJWs will turn. Will they go more left wing? Will they denounce the Democrats and form their own party- the much fabled third party in US politics? Or will some of them get militant and create a left wing populist movement just as contagious as Trump's movement?

I think there's already a lot of room for moderation. People seem to think Trump's positions are extreme because they've only heard what the media said he said, like a game of telephone. 

The Democrats and the DNC are still going to be around and I think they will try to go more left wing/socialist, however I don't know if that will work. One of the big problems I see for the left is that while some are denouncing the identity politics, others are doubling down.

My concern for Democrats in 2020 is that they're going to put up a very "diverse" group of people to compete during the primary and we will see "social justice" cannibalize itself. It's going to be a contest to see who has more or less privilege. A Sanders type candidate will fall to the side while they compete to see who will be the first Latina/Muslim/Black LGBTQ+ nominee. In the end they will pick another weak and ineffective candidate based on their identity rather than policy.

This of course all depends on Trump's first term. If he has a good one he'll be hard to defeat, if he manages to make good on some of his promises, especially bringing jobs back, then he'll be very tough.

Also, while Sanders was popular among a large swath of Democrats, I kind of think that his popularity was partially a college campus tour illusion. It's easy to go from campus to campus and promise "free college", a 15$ minimum wage, and get praised to high heaven. His message really works with college students and college "educated" people, but I don't know how far it extends beyond that. He has some of the populism that resonates with working class people with his stance on the TPP, but I'm not sure if they can be convinced by the socialist aspects of his plans.

6 hours ago, Ln X said:

For me I fancy Sheriff David Clarke as Head of Homeland Security, this man is direct, down-to-earth and does not take nonsense. Also the Terminator as Secretary of State is inspired, the memes alone would be worth it.

David Clarke is a better pick than Sheriff Joe, who I think is a bit loopy. Arnold would be a terrible pick for Secretary of State, but would indeed make great memes. My pick for Secretary of State is Tulsi Gabbard, steal her from the Democrats.

 

6 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

I'm hoping he chooses Sheriff Joe Arpaio as Head of homeland, Senator Jim Inhofe as Secretary of Energy and the Terminator as Sec of state.

Inhofe is too old, get Marc Morano.

Oh and Milo for Press Secretary.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

I think there's already a lot of room for moderation. People seem to think Trump's positions are extreme because they've only heard what the media said he said, like a game of telephone. 

Is there any information apart from media?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

Is there any information apart from media?

When I say "the media" I mean the mainstream, corporate media, which includes CNN, FOX (which is more pro Trump but Murdoch is a pro-Hillary globalist), MSNBC, ABC, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, and various other organizations that are subsidiaries of the big six.

The%20big%20picture.jpg

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

At a certain point Mrs. Clinton was 'guilty' and she was so absolutely and fundamental 'guilty'. And this 'being guilty' was much more important than the 'crime'. I didn't read much analysis on that crime. On trial and court and this legal stuff. Was there any trial? I didn't find something about. There was done this equation accuse = guilt. Which in my country would be called lynch law.

Clinton and her staff went out of their way to make the Emails scandal sound a lot like it was just a rehashed version of the Benghazi debacle (which, while problematic, failed to show guilt, just overwhelming sloppiness and ignorance).

TBH, the big deal about the emails, to me anyways, is that there are many people who have gotten prosecuted for sending classified email via a personal email account; this information was not sent to 3rd parties but directly to other authorized government agents. The crime was sending classified information insecurely. Here's the thing: as far as we can tell, based on Hillary's own statements to the FBI as restated by Jim Comey (in July), Hillary Clinton did send hundreds of emails marked classified over her private email server, she used multiple devices to check said email and read said classified documents, repeatedly claimed no such information had been sent or received, and testified before congress (under oath) to this fact. At the very least she lied to congress (committed perjury); she lied to America for months, and then her guilt of negligence (Comey claims intent is needed to prove criminality, but since when was negligence ever intentional to begin with?) was confirmed with her testimony to Congress.

The whole thing stinks, and Hillary Clinton's guilt of negligence was confirmed by the FBI in a public hearing (the July conference where Comey exonerated her of wrongdoing).

Is that the worst thing any of the candidates did? naw, probably not. But was she guilty of it? Absolutely. The caveat of course is that Comey can't prosecute cases; he has to forward the files to the Attorney General (Loretta Lynn), and we know that she met with the Clintons a few weeks before Comey's statement, which implies that she told them she wouldn't prosecute no matter the facts of the case.

You could, however, make the case that the crime itself wasn't that bad. I'm not sure I would disagree with you, but it looks bad, sounds bad, and she perjured herself before Congress, which raises serious questions about her integrity. I know it's all over now, but it's worth reexamining in case the whole thing was not clear in European media (which I suspect largely supported Clinton as well).

9 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

To get a meaning from data you'll need another instrument. Science doesn't work to get meaning from data. Science can only provide as rationalism can only provide - they can validate impression, perception, cognition. But it can't validate meaning. At least not without abuse

I think this is the biggest problem with Science right now. I actually agree with scientific studies about Global Warming. But the general trend is to use SCIENCE as a club to get people to agree with you; Science has become the new god, and scientists propose meanings with their findings that suggest that their message was handed down from on high. If you wonder why the right-wing in America generally distrusts science, it's because liberal scientists have gone out of their way to make science unpalatable to most conservative Americans. This does not need to be the case, but when science became the liberals' god, this kind of became inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, APSMS said:

Hillary Clinton's guilt of negligence was confirmed by the FBI in a public hearing

Don't understand this, sorry. In america the FBI is part of the juidiciary or the executive? This sounds like it is both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

Don't understand this, sorry. In america the FBI is part of the juidiciary or the executive? This sounds like it is both?

Ah, yes, no she was not convicted, and I'm not sure that anyone would put her in jail were she convicted of whatever crime they felt they could prosecute her on.

Worth noting that OJ Simpson was acquitted by a jury of his peers and people still think he committed the crime and was guilty of the murder of his ex-wife and her boyfriend. So take from that what you will.

FBI is part of the judiciary department, but not executive. Their work as investigators requires close collaboration with federal prosecutors to be effective. James Comey's boss is Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who met with Bill Clinton about 1 week before Comey's statement that he would not recommend her case to federal prosecutors because “[a]lthough there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

As to the "crime" of criminal negligence, Comey introduced the concept of intent; here's what we know she did, per her FBI testimony and a brief account of the events surrounding the scandal, assuming Comey's statements to be in line with Hillary Clinton's FBI testimony and statements (which I think is reasonable considering she did not try to amend anything he said about her during his press conference and congressional hearing the next day):

  • She used a private email server, which has since been to have been set up in violation of the State Department rules per the Inspector General's report.
  • She used said server for private business/personal emails
  • She also received and sent state department emails over this server
  • She used multiple devices to access this email server, including but not limited to her state department approved smartphone (Blackberry).
  • She had her maid print out classified documents from this server. The maid was not given security clearance to view these emails.
  • Clinton lied to the public during numerous press conferences (not an actual crime), and perjured herself under oath before a Congressional Committee hearing, where she repeatedly testified to the affirmative that she did not under any circumstances send classified information through this private server, and stated that she would know if she had because of the obvious nature in which classified emails are labeled.
  • This private email server was hacked at least 5 times between it's initial setup and its decommission. Nothing is known about whether or not any of the emails were read, or if any classified intel was leaked via these hacks. Comey stated that her email server was less secure than the average GMail account.
  • Comey said she was extremely negligent. He is not a judge, sure, but we are assuming that his is an honest assessment of the situation. Note that he said this and still decided not to refer the case to the Attorney General for prosecution. Typically it is the Prosecutor that makes the determination to proceed with a trial, only after the evidence has gone before a grand jury. None of these things happened, so the whole thing is screwy from the start.
  • Clinton's aides received immunity before they made any agreements to cooperate with authorities. Moreover, these "witnesses" were allowed to remain in the room when other witnesses were delivering testimony (usually a no-no, for obvious reasons).
  • Comey stated that numerous emails marked classified were sent and received by Clinton through this email server. This was according to the statements that Clinton made to the FBI (so, her own testimony states that she sent classified information through an unsecured server, and knew that she did so.
  • Three weeks after being subpoenaed by Congress for a hearing to turn over all related emails, a technician managing the Clinton server deletes all of the emails past the 60-day limit using a software called Bleach Bit. It is true that it is not provable that Clinton or her aides were directly involved in any action taken to delete these emails, but it smells. Doesn't have to be true for it to look bad, and the Clinton camp didn't help themselves by sending a letter via lawyer to the Benghazi investigation around the same time that the emails were deleted, that all relevant emails had already been turned over. Why did it take 3 weeks to send a letter whose truth should have been apparent to the Clintons from the moment the subpoena was issued, and whose veracity could have been confirmed with a basic search of the still existing emails?

So should she go to jail? I doubt it. At the very least, though, you could convict her of perjury. Comey's new definition of criminal negligence is interesting, as I've no doubt any one of his employees that was caught transmitting classified documents over a personal email server, even to verified recipients in approved areas would no doubt be fired and prosecuted for violation of state secrets, regardless of criminal intent. Even if guilt of the crime of criminal negligence were not confirmed in court (but violation of classified data protocol was established), such an individual would have their FBI/Law Enforcement career ruined, and they would be blacklisted from serving in a governmental capacity in the future.

I was not surprised that the FBI was unwilling to forward her case to a Federal Prosecutor (who work for the Attorney General, who works for the President), but I was surprised at the amount of information they revealed regarding her lies, deceit, and general incompetence regarding classified data transmitted to her under a system of which she is supposed to be responsible for establishing.

I think the only thing you can really, absolutely draw out of the whole affair (if you want to call into doubt the negligence of her actions or the fact that she did, in fact, send classified data over an unsecured private server per her own testimony), is that she hasn't been prosecuted for these actions, nor is she likely to be prosecuted, even for her perjury before Congress, which makes you wonder how much you can trust anyone in Washington or the Justice department when it comes to people with lots of power (Real Answer: Don't Trust Any of 'Em).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22.11.2016 at 4:17 PM, Ln X said:

 

I strongly believe Trump and his administration's policies will become more moderate as Trump's term chugs along, but what interests me is which way the liberals and SJWs will turn. Will they go more left wing? Will they denounce the Democrats and form their own party- the much fabled third party in US politics? Or will some of them get militant and create a left wing populist movement just as contagious as Trump's movement?

 

The SJW won't leave the democratic party as they don't care about policy substance the only thing they seem to be interested in is political correctness. The liberals on the other hand might, but the system is so rigged against 3rd parties that i don't think it's a possibility.

On 22.11.2016 at 5:27 PM, MilitantRadical said:

C are still going to be around and I think they will try to go more left wing/socialist, however I don't know if that will work. One of the big problems I see for the left is that while some are denouncing the identity politics, others are doubling down.

Also, while Sanders was popular among a large swath of Democrats, I kind of think that his popularity was partially a college campus tour illusion. It's easy to go from campus to campus and promise "free college", a 15$ minimum wage, and get praised to high heaven. His message really works with college students and college "educated" people, but I don't know how far it extends beyond that. He has some of the populism that resonates with working class people with his stance on the TPP, but I'm not sure if they can be convinced by the socialist aspects of his plans.

 

 

 

Here are some  Gallup polls about free child care and free college tuition at public colleges and here is an other Gallup poll about healthcare and also Bernie Sanders - a socialist? Internationally he would be considered to be a centrist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Larma said:

Here are some  Gallup polls about free child care and free college tuition at public colleges and here is an other Gallup poll about healthcare and also Bernie Sanders - a socialist? Internationally he would be considered to be a centrist.

Well Sanders does label himself as a democratic socialist, which is basically his politically correct way of saying he's a socialist. He's definitely one step on the path to socialism.

Those polls sampled less than 1% of Americans and they don't even say what the respondent rate was. Not saying there is zero validity here, but I don't know how well those two polls reflect the attitudes of all Americans.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

Well Sanders does label himself as a democratic socialist, which is basically his politically correct way of saying he's a socialist. He's definitely one step on the path to socialism.

Those polls sampled less than 1% of Americans and they don't even say what the respondent rate was. Not saying there is zero validity here, but I don't know how well those two polls reflect the attitudes of all Americans.

Democratic socialism is the model of Germany, Sweden, Denmark etc, not the model of the soviet union. 

There were also multiple polls with Bernie Sanders up over 10 points against Trump proceeding the election. And are your speculations by any means better than a poll? I think this is could of the best times for someone like Bernie in the history of the us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, APSMS said:

FBI is part of the judiciary department, but not executive. Their work as investigators requires close collaboration with federal prosecutors to be effective. James Comey's boss is Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who met with Bill Clinton about 1 week before Comey's statement that he would not recommend her case to federal prosecutors because “[a]lthough there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

The FBI is an agency of the Department of Justice -- which makes it a part of the executive branch. The judiciary refers only to the judicial branch.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Larma said:

Democratic socialism is the model of Germany, Sweden, Denmark etc, not the model of the soviet union.

Not saying it's the path to full-on communism. I don't disagree that some democratic socialist models work for some European countries, I just don't know how well they'd function in America or if Americans, en-mass, would accept it.

5 hours ago, Larma said:

There were also multiple polls with Bernie Sanders up over 10 points against Trump proceeding the election.

So what? There were polls that had Hillary 12 points ahead of Trump at certain points of the election. Polls are only a snapshot in time and they only sample a small portion of people. They do not reflect the whole nation. Pre-general election polls are always wonky, they can never tell you how things will play out.

I think Sanders would have been a better candidate against Trump, but I don't know if he'd have won.

6 hours ago, Larma said:

And are your speculations by any means better than a poll?

I could be wrong, but so could the poll(s). Polls have their value, but you should never put too much faith in them because they can be rigged, they can ask leading question, the data can be "massaged", the sample size might be too small, or there may be a low percentage of respondents.

Just a gut feeling that despite the fact that Sanders message resonated with people of all ages and classes, his policies don't attract many people outside the liberal academic bubble. This failure to connect with people outside this bubble is seen in Sander's poor performance with "uneducated" African Americans (no college degree) compared to Hillary.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38090185

And now prepare for a US election recount... Will the election drama ever end!?!

If there was ever a time for actual election fraud here it is.

Then again how it should play out is that there'll be a recount and the figures will add up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, krbe said:

The FBI is an agency of the Department of Justice -- which makes it a part of the executive branch. The judiciary refers only to the judicial branch.

Let me get a towel to wipe up all the excess egg. Just a moment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick update about this potential recount of votes. Apparently, in the small print, there is no guarantee that raising the amount of money necessary will cause a recount.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/jill-stein-now-says-money-raised-recount-may-go-elsewhere/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-25/mysterious-case-jill-steins-surging-recount-costs

Zero Hedge, which loves to dig for any and all dirt, points out that some of this donation money is going towards a more general cause of Jill Stein's; electoral reform. I have also read comments from online users that Michigan has already had a recount given how close the result is.

So all in all this is a pointless gesture at best and a sly money-grabbing opportunity at worst. I do have a paranoid streak but reading the small print, and seeing how this story has disappeared from the big news outlets, this isn't a big of a story as I thought it was which is good because I've had enough election drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ln X said:

A quick update about this potential recount of votes. Apparently, in the small print, there is no guarantee that raising the amount of money necessary will cause a recount.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/jill-stein-now-says-money-raised-recount-may-go-elsewhere/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-25/mysterious-case-jill-steins-surging-recount-costs

Zero Hedge, which loves to dig for any and all dirt, points out that some of this donation money is going towards a more general cause of Jill Stein's; electoral reform. I have also read comments from online users that Michigan has already had a recount given how close the result is.

So all in all this is a pointless gesture at best and a sly money-grabbing opportunity at worst. I do have a paranoid streak but reading the small print, and seeing how this story has disappeared from the big news outlets, this isn't a big of a story as I thought it was which is good because I've had enough election drama.

Media hyped it. Another hoax.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Trump vs Media feud continues- now there is uncertainty about whether the media will have a press pool in the White House.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/307413-trumps-media-feud-enters-new-era

Giving Trump's use of Twitter and now Youtube, I reckon he's going to use them hard to get his message out, that and use of alternative media sites. Ironically, MSM sites like RT and Al Jazeera could get into the press pool because they have always had a more anti-American slant; thus love to expose flaws in the American system which Trump, portraying himself as anti-establishment, would like to be exposed.

I suppose MSM is getting exactly what it deserves for it utterly biased coverage: highlighting every single fault with Trump and his allies, brushing away and/or whitewashing every fault with Hillary and her allies.

///

In other news, the Australian federal government has stopped future donations to the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/australia-ceases-multimilliondollar-donations-to-controversial-clinton-family-charities/news-story/219577919ed8dfbd79cf808321234eba

Which could explain why Trump is softened his tone towards Hillary Clinton, after all many donations were made by countries, companies and very important people to the Clinton Foundation to support Hillary's Presidential Campaign under the assumption Hillary was going to be the next president. Given this hasn't happened, I get the feeling they're gonna want their money back. And if they don't get their money back what are they going to do? Blackmail the Clintons- I'm thinking all of their scandals are starting to catch up to them. With countries like Saudi Arabia providing money...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ln X said:

And the Trump vs Media feud continues- now there is uncertainty about whether the media will have a press pool in the White House.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/307413-trumps-media-feud-enters-new-era

Giving Trump's use of Twitter and now Youtube, I reckon he's going to use them hard to get his message out, that and use of alternative media sites. Ironically, MSM sites like RT and Al Jazeera could get into the press pool because they have always had a more anti-American slant; thus love to expose flaws in the American system which Trump, portraying himself as anti-establishment, would like to be exposed.

I suppose MSM is getting exactly what it deserves for it utterly biased coverage: highlighting every single fault with Trump and his allies, brushing away and/or whitewashing every fault with Hillary and her allies.

Good. When's the last time the press pool held a President accountable for anything anyway? They're just repeaters, useless.

That doesn't mean I don't think Trump should be accessible to the press, but press pools are retro. Possible one of the most important stories this election was when Hillary passed out and was chucked into a van like a side of beef, and guess what? Her press pool wasn't even there, they were dismissed. If it wasn't for a guy with a cellphone camera we wouldn't even know it happened. Mainstream media is a complete failure. Used to think I was kind of a conspiracy theorist for thinking that, but 2016 brought a lot of things to light.

4 hours ago, Ln X said:

Which could explain why Trump is softened his tone towards Hillary Clinton, after all many donations were made by countries, companies and very important people to the Clinton Foundation to support Hillary's Presidential Campaign under the assumption Hillary was going to be the next president. Given this hasn't happened, I get the feeling they're gonna want their money back. And if they don't get their money back what are they going to do? Blackmail the Clintons- I'm thinking all of their scandals are starting to catch up to them. With countries like Saudi Arabia providing money...

I think Trump "softened" his tone toward Hillary because he doesn't want to appear to be influencing the DOJ. If any charges are brought against Hillary they should come from the FBI. If Trump is found to be directing the Attorney General or FBI to go after Clinton it would weaken the case and look bad, they're supposed to be independent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24.11.2016 at 4:40 AM, APSMS said:
  • She used a private email server, which has since been to have been set up in violation of the State Department rules per the Inspector General's report.
  • She used said server for private business/personal emails
  • She also received and sent state department emails over this server
  • She used multiple devices to access this email server, including but not limited to her state department approved smartphone (Blackberry).
  • She had her maid print out classified documents from this server. The maid was not given security clearance to view these emails.
  • Clinton lied to the public during numerous press conferences (not an actual crime), and perjured herself under oath before a Congressional Committee hearing, where she repeatedly testified to the affirmative that she did not under any circumstances send classified information through this private server, and stated that she would know if she had because of the obvious nature in which classified emails are labeled.
  • This private email server was hacked at least 5 times between it's initial setup and its decommission. Nothing is known about whether or not any of the emails were read, or if any classified intel was leaked via these hacks. Comey stated that her email server was less secure than the average GMail account.
  • Comey said she was extremely negligent. He is not a judge, sure, but we are assuming that his is an honest assessment of the situation. Note that he said this and still decided not to refer the case to the Attorney General for prosecution. Typically it is the Prosecutor that makes the determination to proceed with a trial, only after the evidence has gone before a grand jury. None of these things happened, so the whole thing is screwy from the start.
  • Clinton's aides received immunity before they made any agreements to cooperate with authorities. Moreover, these "witnesses" were allowed to remain in the room when other witnesses were delivering testimony (usually a no-no, for obvious reasons).
  • Comey stated that numerous emails marked classified were sent and received by Clinton through this email server. This was according to the statements that Clinton made to the FBI (so, her own testimony states that she sent classified information through an unsecured server, and knew that she did so.
  • Three weeks after being subpoenaed by Congress for a hearing to turn over all related emails, a technician managing the Clinton server deletes all of the emails past the 60-day limit using a software called Bleach Bit. It is true that it is not provable that Clinton or her aides were directly involved in any action taken to delete these emails, but it smells. Doesn't have to be true for it to look bad, and the Clinton camp didn't help themselves by sending a letter via lawyer to the Benghazi investigation around the same time that the emails were deleted, that all relevant emails had already been turned over. Why did it take 3 weeks to send a letter whose truth should have been apparent to the Clintons from the moment the subpoena was issued, and whose veracity could have been confirmed with a basic search of the still existing emails?

 

It's hard to say something here that wouldn't sound in your ears as if I want support or defend Clinton. I think Clinton is history now and there isn't much sense collecting all this things together. She won't bother you again.

At least I hope so.

Why I argue is for you. To be open minded. Really - not that I care for Clinton. Me, why should I?

To think media is some kind of judge about the truth of circumstances is the beginning of a media hysteria. Thinking of 'Lügenpresse' and so on comes from this - thinking media sets facts. Media makes offers - mainly for your entertainment. As a german philosopher once said they produce emotions: states of excitements, offers to get excited.

So all these can't be much more than accuses.

And to keep on beeing open minded it's like in science - to know what is a theory. It is something to operate with. It's just an instrument for researches, some kind of starting point.

With crimes it is similar. The accuse doesn't make the crime. It's some kind of description what might be the circumstances.

Guilt can't be stated by media. And I think this is one of the great inventions of democracy that guilt is stated by an instance indipendent from public opinion.

Again - as science. It's also good for science that it isn't made by public opinion. All this mass media shoudn't do. Don't make mass media that powerfull. It's mainly there to make all this stuff entertaining. Think of documentaries. They make history or nature or science entertaining. They can't substitute the sources of knowledge. Media uses sources itself. They don't show truth. They just repeat. Trying to make things spectacular and interesting. The horror for media is: no new stories, nothing happens in the world, everythings fine and at peace. 

Maybe to keep that it mind. Media is bound to create drama - they are economic corporations. They aren't human nature.

Therefore without trial no guilt. Only a theory, only a conviction. As you would wish it for yourself. If yourself was accused.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Debates are important mainly for media. As if debates are a fire media provides the wood to keep the fire burning. So to sell wood the fire is good. And to debate about media is even better for media - cheep wood for big fire.

But I would say this is something sexual.

As to state guilt needs power. And if i look around here there is a great desire to uncover crimes and to identify guilt and to blame this and that. In my opinion this is only some kind of lust. "I put her in jail" - this woman needs to be punished ... well this is a classic sexual fantasy. Punishment. The kind of things they did in Abu Ghraib. And so on. I even think that's why media works. Because behind this excitement there is something thought by evolution - leadership to overpower the adversary to assert oneself in the opinion race.

Can't help - but many things recently reminds me of this:

 

 

Sorry. Maybe off topic. But someway I still think - it's related.

Even between deers things can escalate. They start fighting to impress the females to be the leader but they can just get into some kind of rage and it can end up with killing the adversary.

Again - this 'gettiing into a rage', how politic dispute can leads to radicalisation' - something interesting for me and I think the job of media has a keyrole. But it's to understand this job - to excite people.

And maybe our job is not to get too excited about politics. To hold one's nerve. As f.e. with excitement the missle crisis in Cuba would have ended for both deers bad.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

It's hard to say something here that wouldn't sound in your ears as if I want support or defend Clinton. I think Clinton is history now and there isn't much sense collecting all this things together. She won't bother you again.

At least I hope so.

Why I argue is for you. To be open minded. Really - not that I care for Clinton. Me, why should I?

Ah, yes. I have little stake in the election. I did not vote. At the end of the day I try to keep my head down to stay out of the spotlight of SJWs, and ultimately I expect the world to go to hell in a handbasket.

 

You are right, trials must occur before guilt is confirmed, but what can we infer about her guilt (or rather, her special treatment from the Federal Government) based on her own statements? Politicians run a fine line; Half the time I get annoyed when it comes to things like infidelity charges, mostly because everyone in Washington commits adultery (with few exceptions) and I could care less about those types of scandals unless somehow they can prove it had a meaningful impact on their job. Sensationalist media is indeed the modern muckraker.

As I had said earlier, I don't think she should be imprisoned; what benefit would that serve? But by her own words she is guilty at least of perjury. Assuming the FBI was impartial in their analysis in July her actions fit the textbook definition of criminal negligence (and, by the way, her case was never brought before a grand jury, which is SOP to determine if a case or investigation should continue to trial, so how can we say whether or not her actions warranted the Fed's recommendation to dismiss?).

 

At the end of the day the issue here isn't really whether Clinton is guilty or not or was prosecuted for any of these so-called crimes or not(no, really I mean it). It's the way abuse of power was presented to the public that makes a mockery of the intelligence of the public, and undermines what little faith Americans may have in their government that it will do the right thing when necessary.

The Clinton's could have handled this very differently; the face they chose to present was a dishonest one, and then to ensure that any potential punishment was avoided, they used all their power to skirt the law, even when at the end of the day it's likely nothing would have been done. It reeks. It smells. All while they pretend to have run through the system according to the rules they are clearly not playing by.

 

At least Trump lets us know he's a liar. Heck, half the reason he said he knows the system is rigged is because he takes advantage of it. Do I trust him implicitly? No, but if he makes everyone else in Washington and NY sweat, I figure that can't be a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an Account  

Sign up to join our friendly community. It's easy!  :thumb:


Register a New Account

Sign In  

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now


  •  
  • Similar Content

    • By Stellaris88
      Are there any video games where you play as the illuminati and take control over the world? Or something similar like the illuminati? Or does such an game not exist?
    • By Stellaris88
       
       Are there any Games were you can build an communist or socialist state? It should be an political Simulation or a strategy game, or does such an game not exist?
    • By Stellaris88
      Are there any good cold war era strategy/ political Simulation games? Or are most cold war era games bad? And there are not really good cold war era games?
    • By Stellaris88
      How do i increase the hapiness in tropico 5? and how do i build an strong good economy? any tipps?
    • By Stellaris88
      How do i create in tropico 5 an totalitarian police state? How to i build an strong economy and what do i Need for an totalitarian state? An huge military? a strong police? martial law? Is it possible to build an totalitarian fascist state in tropico 5? Or is this not possible to build an fascist totalitarian police state?
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.