The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mrs Smoker said:
Click to expand...

This dick and Assange are being played. Amazing how they are for transparency and fairness yet cosey up one of the most dangerous authoritarians of our time just because he took in Snowden. Crazy thing is if Greenwald was Russian he would of disappeared a few years ago, being gay and a journalist.
Edward Snowden tweeted " 2016: a choice between Trump and Goldman Sachs ",
I guess these know it all feckers probably know as much as us on this forum.
 
Greenwald is a complete moron. He's all about himself and doesn't give two fecks about the broader issues.
 
It's incredible that rather than talking about the actual content of the leaks - which is utterly damning and a huge concern for the American people - we're now hearing how it's 'Russia's fault' that we've seen the leaks...

They need to clean up at home before taking aim elsewhere.

I'm now starting to understand what Trump was referring to with the 'drain the swamp' comments - Washington DC is seemingly infested with disgusting, corrupt characters and media outlets.
 
If Tillerson does get confirmed as the nominee, might have a tough time getting it past the Senate

 
Ubik said:
If Tillerson does get confirmed as the nominee, might have a tough time getting it past the Senate

Click to expand...


Indeed. Little Marco, Lyin' Ted, the non Hero who was captured in Vietnam and the guy whose phone number Trump tweeted out to the world.

With any luck, there will be so much anti-Tillerson hysteria from both sides that it will scare Trump off from making the pick. That would obviously annoy Putin however.
 
Another anti-Tillerson Dem. If they peel off a group of hawkish Republicans to vote now along with the Dems, he will probably not get confirmed.

 
GiddyUp said:
This dick and Assange are being played. Amazing how they are for transparency and fairness yet cosey up one of the most dangerous authoritarians of our time just because he took in Snowden. Crazy thing is if Greenwald was Russian he would of disappeared a few years ago, being gay and a journalist.
Click to expand...
That's what I can't get my head around it. They are so fecking hypocritical that it hurts.
GiddyUp said:
Edward Snowden tweeted " 2016: a choice between Trump and Goldman Sachs ",
I guess these know it all feckers probably know as much as us on this forum.
Click to expand...
I'd love to hear how Snowden justifies the nomination of all the Wall Street and Big Business guys as not Goldman Sachs-like.

Ubik said:
If Tillerson does get confirmed as the nominee, might have a tough time getting it past the Senate

Click to expand...

Assuming that all Dem Senators would vote against him, how many Republican Senators need to abstain or vote against him? Thanks.
 
Crossie said:
That's what I can't get my head around it. They are so fecking hypocritical that it hurts.

I'd love to hear how Snowden justifies the nomination of all the Wall Street and Big Business guys as not Goldman Sachs-like.


Assuming that all Dem Senators would vote against him, how many Republican Senators need to abstain or vote against him? Thanks.
Click to expand...
It's 52-48, so three would need to switch (50-50 tie would give Pence the deciding vote). Graham, McCain and Rubio would seem the three most likely.
 
Ubik said:
It's 52-48, so three would need to switch (50-50 tie would give Pence the deciding vote). Graham, McCain and Rubio would seem the three most likely.
Click to expand...

Surely there's more in the background with similar sentiments, as opposed to just a few of the big names?
 
Cheesy said:
Surely there's more in the background with similar sentiments, as opposed to just a few of the big names?
Click to expand...
You'd think. Was about to suggest Bob Corker, but checked on his twitter and saw that he was praising Tillerson :lol: Never can tell.

One problem is that if Tillerson is rejected, John Bolton is possibly the next candidate in line and he wouldn't face much opposition :nervous:
 
Ubik said:
You'd think. Was about to suggest Bob Corker, but checked on his twitter and saw that he was praising Tillerson :lol: Never can tell.

One problem is that if Tillerson is rejected, John Bolton is possibly the next candidate in line and he wouldn't face much opposition :nervous:
Click to expand...

Suppose, but then the thing you've got to remember with Vladimir is that he changes his mind on a regular basis, never know who he'll opt for.
 
Ubik said:
It's 52-48, so three would need to switch (50-50 tie would give Pence the deciding vote). Graham, McCain and Rubio would seem the three most likely.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that makes me a tiny bit hopeful Tillerson won't make it.
 
Hopefully there will be sufficient anti-Tillerson drama before Trump actually announces him, to where he will actually select someone else to avoid the shitshow. Don't forget Trump is already in for a fight because of his EPA, HHS, and Labor picks.
 
Most of this board has gone completely insane. You are living in an alternate reality fueled by your own cognitive dissonance. Russia did not "hack" the election. Trump is not Hitler, he's not even right-wing.
 
Irwin said:
Most of this board has gone completely insane. You are living in an alternate reality fueled by your own cognitive dissonance. Russia did not "hack" the election. Trump is not Hitler, he's not even right-wing.
Click to expand...
So the CIA and the intelligence community is talking nonsense according to you?
 
Irwin said:
Most of this board has gone completely insane. You are living in an alternate reality fueled by your own cognitive dissonance. Russia did not "hack" the election. Trump is not Hitler, he's not even right-wing.
Click to expand...
I'd rather you are either alt-right or blatantly ignorant, living in an alternate reality in which it normal to be a racist, a misogynist, being islamophob, notorious liar etc.
 
The Firestarter said:
So the CIA and the intelligence community is talking nonsense according to you?
Click to expand...

Firstly, why in the world would you believe what mainstream media is reporting that the CIA says when they have provided literally zero evidence?

Secondly, even if this was true and Russia was behind the leaks, there is nothing wrong or surprising about another country trying to influence the result of the US election. Especially considering a Hillary victory would have very likely resulted in a war against Russia.
 
Irwin said:
Firstly, why in the world would you believe what mainstream media is reporting that the CIA says when they have provided literally zero evidence?

Secondly, even if this was true and Russia was behind the leaks, there is nothing wrong or surprising about another country trying to influence the result of the US election. Especially considering a Hillary victory would have very likely resulted in a war against Russia.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
The Russians leaked the dirty deeds of the Dems.
That is why Hillary lost.
Lets overturn the elections and give the presidency to Hillary who will go on to unite our nation with love and understanding.

Oh! btw Lets also declare war on the Russians.
 
Irwin said:
Firstly, why in the world would you believe what mainstream media is reporting that the CIA says when they have provided literally zero evidence?

Secondly, even if this was true and Russia was behind the leaks, there is nothing wrong or surprising about another country trying to influence the result of the US election. Especially considering a Hillary victory would have very likely resulted in a war against Russia.
Click to expand...

So a bunch of US senators of both isles coming together on this issue is purely based on mainstream nonsense? Surely McCain and others sitting on intelligence committees and actually having clearances have better ways of acquiring information.

About the bolded part: that's a ridiculous statement and shows you have no credibility on such matters.
 
Irwin said:
Firstly, why in the world would you believe what mainstream media is reporting that the CIA says when they have provided literally zero evidence?

Secondly, even if this was true and Russia was behind the leaks, there is nothing wrong or surprising about another country trying to influence the result of the US election. Especially considering a Hillary victory would have very likely resulted in a war against Russia.
Click to expand...
Red Dreams said:
The Russians leaked the dirty deeds of the Dems.
That is why Hillary lost.
Lets overturn the elections and give the presidency to Hillary who will go on to unite our nation with love and understanding.

Oh! btw Lets also declare war on the Russians.
Click to expand...

That "war on Russia" stuff is probably the most stupid shit I've heard in the last few years. No matter how often you repeat it, it's blatantly stupid. If anything, Hillary is deep in the realist camp of foreign policy. What's to gain on a war with Russia? Nothing. So would she have done anything? Nope.
The Russians are also just testing how far they can go, nobody, absolutely nobody will start a real war. When they haven't for the entirety of the whole freakin' cold war, why would anybody now :lol: It's such a shame people really seem to lack the most basic understandings of foreign and security policy. Both of you probably lack a proper education, it really is the only explanation, but that really shows how sad the election of Trump is: stupid people got caught by blatantly stupid arguments.
 
fcbforever said:
That "war on Russia" stuff is probably the most stupid shit I've heard in the last few years. No matter how often you repeat it, it's blatantly stupid. If anything, Hillary is deep in the realist camp of foreign policy. What's to gain on a war with Russia? Nothing. So would she have done anything? Nope.
The Russians are also just testing how far they can go, nobody, absolutely nobody will start a real war. When they haven't for the entirety of the whole freakin' cold war, why would anybody now :lol: It's such a shame people really seem to lack the most basic understandings of foreign and security policy. Both of you probably lack a proper education, it really is the only explanation, but that really shows how sad the election of Trump is: stupid people got caught by blatantly stupid arguments.
Click to expand...

and you don't understand sarcasm.

We were never going to war with Russia.
But Hillary was pushing for a no-fly zone, which directly would have led to a conflict with Russia.
Of course we need to get to the bottom of the leaks.
But lets not let this distract from the fact why Hillary lost the elctions...which has been gone over in the other thread.
 
The Firestarter said:
So a bunch of US senators of both isles coming together on this issue is purely based on mainstream nonsense? Surely McCain and others sitting on intelligence committees and actually having clearances have better ways of acquiring information.
Click to expand...

They have provided zero evidence. A lot of republicans are anti-Trump and there's a power struggle going on behind the scenes.

About the bolded part: that's a ridiculous statement and shows you have no credibility on such matters.
Click to expand...

Hillary's plan to implement a no-fly zone in Syria would have resulted in war against Russia. This shouldn't even be controversial.
 
Red Dreams said:
and you don't understand sarcasm.

We were never going to war with Russia.
But Hillary was pushing for a no-fly zone, which directly would have led to a conflict with Russia.
Of course we need to get to the bottom of the leaks.
But lets not let this distract from the fact why Hillary lost the elctions...which has been gone over in the other thread.
Click to expand...
Just like it happened in Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, right...oh wait..
 
Irwin said:
Most of this board has gone completely insane. You are living in an alternate reality fueled by your own cognitive dissonance. Russia did not "hack" the election. Trump is not Hitler, he's not even right-wing.
Click to expand...

exactly this.

No one complains about the local media brainwashing them on a daily basis to make sure Clinton won, but Russia decides to troll them a little bit and they go crazy. :lol:
 
Irwin said:
They have provided zero evidence. A lot of republicans are anti-Trump and there's a power struggle going on behind the scenes.



Hillary's plan to implement a no-fly zone in Syria would have resulted in war against Russia. This shouldn't even be controversial.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't have. Russia would've risked utter annihilation in that they'd have come up against both the US and the entirety of Europe - there'd have been no benefit for them doing this whatsoever. Putin was largely flexing his muscle and now Trump's in, he'll be able to do so to a greater extent. The idea war was a certainty is laughable.
 
George Owen said:
exactly this.

No one complains about the local media brainwashing them on a daily basis to make sure Clinton won, but Russia decides to troll them a little bit and they go crazy. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes, like how they tried to ensure her victory through the...uh, extensive coverage of her emails?:lol:
 
George Owen said:
exactly this.

No one complains about the local media brainwashing them on a daily basis to make sure Clinton won, but Russia decides to troll them a little bit and they go crazy. :lol:
Click to expand...
You thought Jill Stein was the best candidate, didn't you?
 
Red Dreams said:
serious question.

Do you really think that a no-fly zone would have caused no problems with the Russians?
Click to expand...
It would have caused problems but not a "shooting war between NATO and Russia" type of a problem. Do you remember, a NATO country - Turkey - actually shot down a Russian fighter. Was there any military reaction from Russia? No. Because they know they stand no chance. The Russian elite around Putin is extremely wealthy. Why would they risk their (and family) well-being by bringing the country into a total and possibly non-conventional war? Makes no sense.
 
Ubik said:
You thought Jill Stein was the best candidate, didn't you?
Click to expand...

yeas, anyone outside the establishment (democrats and republicans) is the better candidate for the common people.

Hard to know though because they hardly get any proper coverage by the corrupt mass media.
 
The Firestarter said:
It would have caused problems but not a "shooting war between NATO and Russia" type of a problem. Do you remember, a NATO country - Turkey - actually shot down a Russian fighter. Was there any military reaction from Russia? No. Because they know they stand no chance. The Russian elite around Putin is extremely wealthy. Why would they risk their (and family) well-being by bringing the country into a total and possibly non-conventional war? Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

a shooting war or a non-shooting war....come on.

Why the hell would we want a conflict with them? The no-fly zone would be the first step in dragging us into putting troops there.I have said before there was no chance of a direct war with Russia. This is what she was pushing for. She is a neo-con . Graham and McCain agree with her. They would have loved her as President instead of Trumpy.

We need to get to the bottom of these leaks...And sort out our differences with the Russians diplomatically. Unless of course teh American people want a war with them.
This I highly doubt! We are sick of our troops being sent to these places.
And it would seem we are funding the very people who we are fighting in Iraq.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.