The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds like wording that people try and dig to find something on but what would it mean if Trump was there?

They're already pitching the 'there's nothing wrong with what Jr did' line, that'll just extend to Sr and nobody will care that they've been misled yet again.
 
Every now and then I wonder if I'm mistaken and maybe I'm being (a little) led by the media and the libcafe echo chamber.... and then a stealth Trump supporter turns up and starts posting the same old tired shite.

Instantly reaffirms my beliefs, about them and about what's going on, due to their inability to counter any of the things that are being discussed...

I also get to fill out the old bingo card too which is mildly entertaining. Thank you...
 
I just never understood saying out to the lot of us to let Trump do his job. If we're going by the policies he has campaigned on, then it's better that he doesn't do his job.
 
langster said:


I think it's a bit of a stretch to be honest, but feck me, what if Trump was there? Sheeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit! Of course he will just shrug it off anyway, and will probably say something like "That's how I know Don Jr is innocent and how I know nothing was said, because I was there and nothing went on"
Click to expand...


This mysterious 8th person in the meeting that nobody is prepared to name just yet?

It seems like all the news channels are talking about it and they're all saying "it's not known yet who it is, who on earth could it be?" as if they know it's big news but they're embargoed on it.

It wouldn't be a surprise if they were holding back the information on the instruction of their IC leaker that it was Trump Snr and that was the next bombshell to be dropped. They seem to like staggering the leaks in order to maximise the lies they twist themselves into.
 
Pexbo said:
This mysterious 8th person in the meeting that nobody is prepared to name just yet?

It seems like all the news channels are talking about it and they're all saying "it's not known yet who it is, who on earth could it be?" as if they know it's big news but they're embargoed on it.

It wouldn't be a surprise if they were holding back the information on the instruction of their IC leaker that it was Trump Snr and that was the next bombshell to be dropped. They seem to like staggering the leaks in order to maximise the lies they twist themselves into.
Click to expand...

Its definitely strange. CNN a few days reported that this person is an associate of the Agalarov family. If CNN are correct, then whats the reason the name hasn't been published yet? Unless its something bizarre like Putin or Lavrov sneaking into the building for the meeting :lol:

Also the journo who said he knew the identity has not said anything since on it or given an update when the name will be released.
 
Fergies Gum said:
Its definitely strange. CNN a few days reported that this person is an associate of the Agalarov family. If CNN are correct, then whats the reason the name hasn't been published yet? Unless its something bizarre like Putin or Lavrov sneaking into the building for the meeting :lol:

Also the journo who said he knew the identity has not said anything since on it or given an update when the name will be released.
Click to expand...

I'll go one further and suggest it's the SS that are embargoing it because it will be a little embarrassing if they were indeed there and passed security clearance.

It would also explain where this SS excuse narrative has come from. The WH have been briefed on it or caught wind that the SS aren't happy about it and are now pushing that angle because they think it somewhat clears them if the SS didn't catch the bad people they were trying to covertly meet.

It's a bit like when they were briefed that they'd been picked up talking to Russians by SIGINT and got the narrative out there that they had been wire tapped before the story broke to muddy the waters.


Trump was there, the SS was supposed to be protecting him and yet these adversaries were able to enter the building and have a meeting with them? It's pretty damning stuff for the SS and it could be why they're being so brazen about it.
 
Pexbo said:
I'll go one further and suggest it's the SS that are embargoing it because it will be a little embarrassing if they were indeed there and passed security clearance.

It would also explain where this SS excuse narrative has come from. The WH have been briefed on it or caught wind that the SS aren't happy about it and are now pushing that angle because they think it somewhat clears them if the SS didn't catch the bad people they were trying to covertly meet.

It's a bit like when they were briefed that they'd been picked up talking to Russians by SIGINT and got the narrative out there that they had been wire tapped before the story broke to muddy the waters.


Trump was there, the SS was supposed to be protecting him and yet these adversaries were able to enter the building and have a meeting with them? It's pretty damning stuff for the SS and it could be why they're being so brazen about it.
Click to expand...

The ex Soviet spy claimed that no security checks took place at Trump Tower. Wondering if Trump sent down his bodyguard Schiller to escort them into the building via a private entrance, so they could avoid id checks and details being noted down on forms.



Regarding the bit in bold. Its not the SS job to babysit Trump and tell him and what meetings his campaign can and cannot have, so they bare no blame for this meeting taking place.
 
Fergies Gum said:
The ex Soviet spy claimed that no security checks took place at Trump Tower. Wondering if Trump sent down his bodyguard Schiller to escort them into the building via a private entrance, so that they never entered via the main way where SS would log their details down.

Though its not the SS job to babysit Trump and tell him and what meetings his campaign can and cannot have, so they bare no blame for this meeting taking place.
Click to expand...

That won't stop them pushing the narrative. "We didn't know who we were meeting, they should have been protecting us!". Ugh I can see it now.
 
Last edited:
Buchan said:
I find it astonishing that, in this day and age, there are powerful media entities actively shaming citizens into not declaring their support for the President of the

It is disgusting, no matter who you support. This is a slippery slope towards fascism, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

It's the standard response now if you claim an unpopular belief. The following happens almost by rote:

  • First, "shame" the person claiming that belief by arguing with them. You're usually reinforced by other equally vociferous people. Claim dubious / arguable source from biased media report as factual.
  • Then - if they retort/argue or are bolstered by other supporters, attack them verbally. Insult them. If they stop arguing back, you've won, and they are less likely to post that controversial opinion again - even if they continue to believe that opinion.
This ends up with a lot of loud people agreeing with each other while the silent masses simply continue to believe the same thing.

No debates happen. It always just descends into anger, then an echo chamber of totalitarian agreement, then silence.

Trump is a narcissist and a psycho but nobody seems to be analysing how he got into power - and that to many, the Clintons may have been worse. a rather strange number of people that investigate the Clintons end up "suiciding".
That's -probably- the Russians. But if you mention the Clintons now, people get angry and say YOU SHOULD BE HAPPY, YOU WON! But no, I don't care, I am just a bit bored of the endless anti Trump tirades every day.

One thing I will say is that if there's nothing to what Trump had been arguing for the last 6 months - why has he not been impeached yet, or been put in court for libel? Especially in the country where suing is basically cultural. Nobody has sued him or put him in court so I can't for a second believe there's any smoking gun yet.

As much as many seem to hate him - I believe you are stuck with him.
 
GazTheLegend said:
It's the standard response now if you claim an unpopular belief. The following happens almost by rote:

  • First, "shame" the person claiming that belief by arguing with them. You're usually reinforced by other equally vociferous people. Claim dubious / arguable source from biased media report as factual.
  • Then - if they retort/argue or are bolstered by other supporters, attack them verbally. Insult them. If they stop arguing back, you've won, and they are less likely to post that controversial opinion again - even if they continue to believe that opinion.
This ends up with a lot of loud people agreeing with each other while the silent masses simply continue to believe the same thing.

No debates happen. It always just descends into anger, then an echo chamber of totalitarian agreement, then silence.

Trump is a narcissist and a psycho but nobody seems to be analysing how he got into power - and that to many, the Clintons may have been worse. a rather strange number of people that investigate the Clintons end up "suiciding".
That's -probably- the Russians. But if you mention the Clintons now, people get angry and say YOU SHOULD BE HAPPY, YOU WON! But no, I don't care, I am just a bit bored of the endless anti Trump tirades every day.

One thing I will say is that if there's nothing to what Trump had been arguing for the last 6 months - why has he not been impeached yet, or been put in court for libel? Especially in the country where suing is basically cultural. Nobody has sued him or put him in court so I can't for a second believe there's any smoking gun yet.

As much as many seem to hate him - I believe you are stuck with him.
Click to expand...

Of course people are analysing how he got into power. Hillary's indiscretions and the DNC's losses aren't really news though are they? They're for political and historical analysis and worthy of books, theses and think pieces rather than current affairs and news stories. Check out the name of the forum.

Also, since you acknowledge that this narcissist and psycho is now leader of the world's most powerful country, don't you think his actions both in that role and informing it sort of take precedence in a forum dedicated to current events? Apparently not, you don't care and are a bit bored.

On the one other thing you will say - about why nothing has happened, maybe consider the following:

A) The president is immunte to civil suits for actions while president, and is claiming he is immune to suits for acts preceding his presidency to prevent other suits from progressing - though they do seem to exist.

B) One possible reason he hasn't been impeached may be because his party controls the house - the only legislative body capable of bringing impeachment hearings.

C) Mueller is currently conducting a special investigation on the subject.
 
Last edited:
The final points have been covered above - it's due process, and to use "nothing's happened yet" when there's a huge, very active investigation with pieces of evidence piling up every day is short sighted.

GazTheLegend said:
  • First, "shame" the person claiming that belief by arguing with them. You're usually reinforced by other equally vociferous people. Claim dubious / arguable source from biased media report as factual.
  • Then - if they retort/argue or are bolstered by other supporters, attack them verbally. Insult them. If they stop arguing back, you've won, and they are less likely to post that controversial opinion again - even if they continue to believe that opinion.
Click to expand...
Are you implying that happens here? Arguing with someone "shames" them? And who's insulting who?

Trump is a narcissist and a psycho but nobody seems to be analysing how he got into power - and that to many, the Clintons may have been worse. a rather strange number of people that investigate the Clintons end up "suiciding".
That's -probably- the Russians.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that the Russian government murdered people for the Clintons?
 
unchanged_lineup said:
Are you implying that happens here? Arguing with someone "shames" them? And who's insulting who?
Click to expand...
.

No, it happens everywhere on social media as far as I see. People are shamed by using non offensive (yet still loaded) terms like "How can you believe / vote x, are you racist/sexist/(whatever)?" Straw man arguments are not conducive to discourse. If you're left defending your personal character the original argument is forgotten to begin with.

Are you implying that the Russian government murdered people for the Clintons?
Click to expand...

No I'm implying that either the Clintons and/or the Russians are offing potential witnesses to their misdeeds. More likely to be the Russians though. If you look up the Clinton body count on google it's fairly amusingly huge, whether there's any meat to any of that particular conspiracy theory is neither here nor there but the Russians are certainly well known for ending their problems at source.

Peter Smith is the latest "suicide"

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.va...ls-from-russian-hackers-committed-suicide/amp
 
GazTheLegend said:
.
People are shamed by using non offensive (yet still loaded) terms like "How can you believe / vote x, are you racist/sexist/(whatever)?"
Click to expand...

The shoe fits. Central Park Five and the bus tape. His voters have endorsed that. How can you argue against that /sarc.

Straw man arguments are not conducive to discourse. If you're left defending your personal character the original argument is forgotten to begin with.
Click to expand...

While it may be the case, because I have no way of telling if the social media you're seeing is the same as what I see, the original tone of your post was open-ended so as to impugn this thread. You should have made that clearer, or if you do actually believe that, I totally disagree with you.

No I'm implying that either the Clintons and/or the Russians are offing potential witnesses to their misdeeds. More likely to be the Russians though. If you look up the Clinton body count on google it's fairly amusingly huge, whether there's any meat to any of that particular conspiracy theory is neither here nor there but the Russians are certainly well known for ending their problems at source.

Peter Smith is the latest "suicide"

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.va...ls-from-russian-hackers-committed-suicide/amp
Click to expand...

Ok then. Why would it be neither here nor there? Burden of proof is on you, go for it.
 
GazTheLegend said:
No I'm implying that either the Clintons and/or the Russians are offing potential witnesses to their misdeeds. More likely to be the Russians though. If you look up the Clinton body count on google it's fairly amusingly huge, whether there's any meat to any of that particular conspiracy theory is neither here nor there but the Russians are certainly well known for ending their problems at source.

Peter Smith is the latest "suicide"

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.va...ls-from-russian-hackers-committed-suicide/amp
Click to expand...
GazTheLegend said:
I don't have the time or the inclination, look it up yourself or don't, I simply find the notion quite amusing but also believable to an extent.
Click to expand...
:lol: 'kinell

Are you serious? I'm not sure you are... please, continue...
 
GazTheLegend said:
I don't have the time or the inclination, look it up yourself or don't, I simply find the notion quite amusing but also believable to an extent.
Click to expand...
You come in here throwing a bold claim and you don't even want to back it up? And how do you know it was not the KGB putting the hit on him?
 
langster said:
Well you read the shite I write in here, so I believe you would, mate. :lol:

BTW, I'm a Clive Cussler man myself. ;)
Click to expand...
Clive Cussler is a pseudonym, his books were all actually written by Hillary Clinton.

I don't have the time or the inclination to show you the proof, look it up yourself or don't, I don't care.
 
GazTheLegend said:
I don't have the time or the inclination, look it up yourself or don't, I simply find the notion quite amusing but also believable to an extent.
Click to expand...

I know it wasn't you in the past, but that exact get-out clause has been used over and over again when people post here with outlandish theories.
 
Rado_N said:
Clive Cussler is a pseudonym, his books were all actually written by Hillary Clinton.

I don't have the time or the inclination to show you the proof, look it up yourself or don't, I don't care.
Click to expand...

:lol: I can't be arsed to check, so I will take your word for it. You seem like a trustworthy chap.
 
Rado_N said:
Bad Tom Clancy? What is this nonsense you speak of? Tom Clancy books are wonderful.
Click to expand...

Jack Ryan Sr novels are God level. Rest are shite.

langster said:
Well you read the shite I write in here, so I believe you would, mate. :lol:

BTW, I'm a Clive Cussler man myself. ;)
Click to expand...

Ah, Cussler. Loved his books. Dirk Pitt was the MAN! But they have aged badly. Went back for a re-read some time before and couldn't stick with them.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Of course people are analysing how he got into power. Hillary's indiscretions and the DNC's losses aren't really news though are they? They're for political and historical analysis and worthy of books, theses and think pieces rather than current affairs and news stories. Check out the name of the forum.

Also, since you acknowledge that this narcissist and psycho is now leader of the world's most powerful country, don't you think his actions both in that role and informing it sort of take precedence in a forum dedicated to current events? Apparently not, you don't care and are a bit bored.

On the one other thing you will say - about why nothing has happened, maybe consider the following:

A) The president is immunte to civil suits for actions while president, and is claiming he is immune to suits for acts preceding his presidency to prevent other suits from progressing - though they do seem to exist.

B) One possible reason he hasn't been impeached may be because his party controls the house - the only legislative body capable of bringing impeachment hearings.

C) Mueller is currently conducting a special investigation on the subject.
Click to expand...

Would like to see a reply on this and not the Clive Cussler stuff :P
 
Is this the Clancy appreciation thread now?!

Well good... also read his stuff in school and can only admit that I was fully engrossed.
 
Still read Clancy's stuff, no fecks given....

Has it been a relatively quiet day then Trump wise?
 
The Sum of all Fears was good, though they fouled up the movie casting Ben Aflac and changing the antagonist to make it more politically correct. Thanks Obama.
 
Any chance we can move this Clancy talk out of the thread?

This is supposed to be a thriller about espionage, the cold war, military, the CIA and the NSA. It's no place for Clancy ffs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.