Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Trump (Part 4)

1000 replies

claig · 04/12/2016 19:37

Continuing discussion of the Trumpquake and populist rebellions

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
BertrandRussell · 12/12/2016 18:13

Oh blimey- we're not in Bildeberg territory, are we?

Missswatch · 12/12/2016 18:14

Build a bear territory?

Kaija · 12/12/2016 18:30

Oh look.

Trump (Part 4)
Lweji · 12/12/2016 20:08

Even more amusing:

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
Unless you catch "hackers" in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn't this brought up before election?
05:21 - 12 de dez de 2016

It was!!! As pointed out as comments after this tweet. Grin

Kaija · 12/12/2016 20:12

It certainly was. Not least by Trump himself urging Russia to do it.

DeepanKrispanEven · 13/12/2016 00:32

Quote 1:

"Almost every elite institution in America is united (or mostly united) against Donald Trump. Consider:
...
Big business: Not a single Fortune 100 CEO has endorsed Trump, while 11 are supporting Clinton, per the Wall Street Journal. (The other 89 haven't picked a side.)"

Quote 2:

"CEOs are similar, in a different stream of elite, not "political class", SPAD, Oxbridge etc, but they are not real elites because they don't determine policy, they usually have to follow the environment that has been set out for them"

What changed between those two quotes, claig?

But I'm glad that you accept that Trump's putative new Secretary of State is one of the elite.

Chris1234567890 · 13/12/2016 01:21

"Chris, there was absolutely nothing remotely "goady" in my question to you. Nothing. But thank you for answering." And thats why I answered. My pleasure.

Chris1234567890 · 13/12/2016 03:22

"It certainly was. Not least by Trump himself urging Russia to do it."

"Rigged (before election) - no evidence
Illegal immigrants voting - no evidence
Russian hackers - evidence from CIA and independent security firms"

"It's extraordinary, having the President telling the American people not to listen to what the CIA are saying..........."

Just to roll a few of these posts in together as its been quite a day looking at how the democrats have gone into extreme desperation mode and are throwing everything they can at this. The Russia hacking claims.

Hillary started squeeling about Russia being responsible for the DNC email wikileaks as soon as they were leaked. Rather than acknowledge or address the contents of the mails she squeeled, its Russia!! The democrats continue to squeel its Russia!

In true Trump style, he took the piss, in front of millions, and asked Russia for help finding the other 30,000 mails. It was funny. Even Russia laughed. Thankfully.
(Hillarys course of action was indeed set to agressive war mode on Russia, clearly the democrats would still prefer a war with Russia, than lose an election. You can thank the Trump voters later for avoiding that one)

Anyone now standing up using this as evidence that Trump was publicly requesting Russias' help, are to be honest, nutty as a fruit loop. If Trump was in cahoots with Russia, hed have done it on the secret bat phone, not announced it to the world.

It has been confirmed many times by wikileaks, that the DNC leaks were exactly that. Leaks. Not hacks. Not Russia. Internal leaks, and its strongly beleived that the NSA leaked them.

A former british ambassador has confirmed he knows who 'Guccifer' is who leaked the DNC emails. It wasnt Russia. Have the CIA asked him in for questioning? No. Has the FBI? No. Youd think theyd be interested.

Jill Stein launched several multi-million dollar law suits to demand recounts in various states. She based her recount requests on the 'possibility' there may have been interferance and hacking in the election vote. Yet the CIA, the Democrats, Obama and the Clintons, didnt provide her with their 'evidence' of Russian hacking? Not a jot. Not even a little piece of something to support her? All those donors, spending all that money, and Obama, Clinton and the Dems kept their secret russian evidence secret? Bull shit.

So what does that leave us with? The 'independant security firms' were dismissed as fake a couple of weeks ago (back up the thread to the Wash Post retraction), which leaves the CIA 'evidence'. What evidence? They havent produced any evidence. The FBI say there isnt any evidence.
They demand extradition of an autistic bedroom hacker, yet no one or any organisation has been identified in this world changing farce? Its just 'the russians'?

Yet what is known, is how Obama has used the CIA and intelligence agencies in the past for political purposes. The Intelgate scandal is still ongoing. We also know historically, how intelligence is manipulated for political purposes. Blair did it. Bush did it.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelgate

Have I missed anything? Oh the rigging questions above.
Yes there is evidence of rigging. The wikileak DNC emails exposed masses of Hillary and the DNC rigging in the election campaign. The DNC chair and 3 further senior DNC officers resigned over it. The DNC also apologised to Bernie Sanders. No one has denied the contents of the DNC wikileak emails were not genuine.

Illegal immigrants voting? That I think the jury is still out on. There is masses of debate about the lack of voter ID and also the difficulties in collating firm data around this, so yes for now, Id agree, theres no clear evidence. However, its fair to point out, that in several states its apparently easy to do, so whose to say it hasnt happened, so perhaps the only answer would indeed be voter ID across the country going forward

In short, if Trump says its ridiculous to suggest Russia are involved in Hillary losing the election, based on what we do know, I absolutely agree with him.

PS Perhaps she should have canvassed in the states she lost. Not rigged her election campaign, and not called half the nation 'deplorables'...... just saying.

Chris1234567890 · 13/12/2016 03:36

Wisconsin recount now closed. Trump gains an extra 131 votes! Oh that must sting ...brilliant. Grin

OhYouBadBadKitten · 13/12/2016 07:09

You aren't a very nice person are you Chris? Actually it doesn't sting - one thing that most of us understand is that suspicion doesn't equal guilt. Is that something you struggle with? Where were the millions of illegal immigrant votes? do none of them live in Wisconsin?

BertrandRussell · 13/12/2016 07:23

Doesn't" "sting" -at all. It's good to know that Clinton's majority of the popular vote was not inflated by '"millions of illegal votes"

Lweji · 13/12/2016 07:25

Not much time here, but about how the FBI and CIA differ about Russian hacking

www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-and-cia-give-differing-accounts-to-lawmakers-on-russias-motives-in-2016-hacks/2016/12/10/c6dfadfa-bef0-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.9f3b03e4b2a7

Let's not forget that it was the FBI that threw the campaign into disarray by referring to the newly found emails in a way that led to wild accusations about Hillary, even though they ended up finding nothing.

Anyway, I agree with Obama in ordering a proper review so that the speculation can end.

And btw, we discussed Hillary's emails here and there was much less in them than the Trump campaign would have us believe.

I, for one, would have loved to get a look into Trump's emails or his campaign managers'. Grin
Somehow nobody managed or wanted to hack them... Just saying.

Lweji · 13/12/2016 07:32

As for the recounts, Hillary didn't ask for them.
In any case, recounts are part of the normal democratic process and should be automatic in case of small margins.
In fact, it should be decided by a neutral electoral committee and not paid for by candidates, to be fully democratic.
Funnily, the US is strangely undemocratic in many ways. But I'm sure that will be one of the things Trump will work on, to serve the people.

Kaija · 13/12/2016 07:52

It's certainly an interesting debating style you're adopting there Chris for someone who objects to "goading", but you're working very hard on the "nothing to see here" story I'll give you that.

However, this is of course not democrats "squeeling" as you quaintly put it. Republicans are taking this equally seriously, as now are the Electoral College.

It shows an impressive degree of blind faith to keep supporting a president elect who dismisses a warning from the intelligence services on this scale.

Missswatch · 13/12/2016 08:14

But it does sting. Type 'upset Hillary supporters' into YouTube search and see for yourself

Lweji · 13/12/2016 08:23

I've typed "upset Hillary supporters" into Youtube

Clips are from a month ago when Hillary lost.
Of course (the) people were upset.

I think only Hillary supporters would be able to tell if the recount results sting or not, wouldn't you say? :)
Or are you a Hillary supporter, Misss?

I don't think it stings. It shows that the result was truthful, and it has just shown that Democracy works.
In science we confirm the data 2 or more times. It's normal practice.

DeepanKrispanEven · 13/12/2016 08:25

I've tried, but I haven't managed to find one Hillary supporter upset because Trump got 131 more votes in Wisconsin.

Chris, does a non-president have a secret bat phone to the Russian leadership? Is there evidence for that?

Talking of unrevealed documents, we never did get to see Trump's tax returns, did we?

Lweji · 13/12/2016 08:33

On Trump's tax returns:

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/01/a-big-dirty-secret-from-donald-trumps-tax-returns-has-been-exposed/?utm_term=.1f40dc915f19

It turns out that the way his debt was written off, and he still had to pay not tax, may not have been exactly legal.
It might explain why he's being audited...

Kaija · 13/12/2016 08:44

From that link

"Those documents suggested that the Republican nominee could have avoided paying taxes on as much as $916 million in income. The question was how he could do so legally. Experts had put forward a range of intricate theories, and the new documents disclosed by the Times on Monday point to one explanation for how Trump sheltered the bulk of that money.
It appears Trump gave his creditors shares of his failing businesses to avoid taxes on hundreds of millions of dollars they granted him in debt relief, a practice that has since been explicitly outlawed, the Times explained.
In short, “He made it up,” said legal scholar Edward Kleinbard of the University of Southern California."

Kaija · 13/12/2016 08:53

Next moves for Russian disinformation:

m.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11765820

squishysquirmy · 13/12/2016 09:05

I think it's reassuring that the recount showed more votes for Trump in Wisconsin - it is so important to be accurate about issues that important, even if it doesn't change the result in the end. Surely confirming the data twice (as Lweji put it) is good for both sides if it improves voter confidence?

We don't know for sure that Russia were involved in election interference, but we do know there is some evidence. In the name of transparency surely it is every ones interest to investigate further? Not just to dismiss it all and publicly insult the CIA? If you expose a "conspiracy theory" to the light of scrutiny and it turns out to be nothing, that's a good thing.

Slight diversion (sorry, just musing) - does anyone else feel its sort of off the way Hillary is so often described as "squealing" or "screeching"? For all her faults she's always come off as very composed to me. Is it because she has a high voice?

BertrandRussell · 13/12/2016 09:06

"But it does sting. Type 'upset Hillary supporters' into YouTube search and see for yourself"

Just did. Was I using the wrong YouTube? Does Trump have his own?

Lweji · 13/12/2016 10:24

Is it because she has a high voice?

Like most women? Maybe?

In the same way men get angry and women get hysterical?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.