The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
WackyWengerWorld said:
It sounds good but it's hyperbole. All kinds of organisations try to influence elections. If Fox had some dirt on Hillary they would and did try to expose it while twisting the facts. It's not like the US don't constantly try to not only influence elections but actually back dictators to.
Click to expand...

Again, the two wrongs make a right argument had been discussed before. It's just a device to obfuscate from dealing with the topic before us.
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
It sounds good but it's hyperbole. All kinds of organisations try to influence elections. If Fox had some dirt on Hillary they would and did try to expose it while twisting the facts. It's not like the US don't constantly try to not only influence elections but actually back dictators to.
Click to expand...
The fatal blows were the Comey letters. It was the final reason for a lot of folks to stay home, IMO.
 
The Firestarter said:
The fatal blows were the Comey letters. It was the final reason for a lot of folks to stay home, IMO.
Click to expand...
nah it was the economy... wait, apparently it wasn't. I'm still waiting to hear the solid reason(s). Sorry @RedDream I don't buy into honest/sincere/lack of message. As I said, Trump is neither honest nor sincere and Hillary did have a message. It was perhaps drowned out by the consistent leaks from t̶h̶e̶ ̶4̶0̶0̶l̶b̶ ̶g̶u̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶a̶r̶e̶n̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶b̶a̶s̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ Russia.
 
With "someone" hacking both the Democrats and the Republicans, yet only leaking Democract data the obvious suspicion is that they're simply colluding with Trump but you've got to wonder whether they also have unearthed some serious dirt on Trump himself and are using it as leverage. He's an absolute prime target even without running for President and you can guarentue he's got some nasty skeletons hidden somewhere. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they targeted him years ago knowing he planned to run at some point.
 
Pexbo said:
That's not interfering. That's being absolutely clear what impact it will have with one of our biggest trading partner.
Click to expand...

And the Russians simply ensured that another reality, that of Hillary Clinton's emails, was known to the American people before they made their decision.

If our judgement is based on who was telling the truth, Putin or Obama, the Russian leader was simply putting incontrovertible facts into the public domain, whereas subsequent events have shown that Obama's characterization of a post-Brexit world was not accurate.
 
Assange has already said it was a insider in the US intelligence service who leaked the emails - not the Russians.

Craig Murray also met the source of the leak and confirmed him to be US intelligence.

People hear defending loose security on email because of age, techno phobia, whatever.

Imagine what the intelligence community thought about Clinton and Podesta having absolute power, and gmail.
 
Will Absolute said:
And the Russians simply ensured that another reality, that of Hillary Clinton's emails, was known to the American people before they made their decision.

If our judgement is based on who was telling the truth, Putin or Obama, the Russian leader was simply putting incontrovertible facts into the public domain, whereas subsequent events have shown that Obama's characterization of a post-Brexit world was not accurate.
Click to expand...

Leaking one sides truths while protecting another's is in no way comparable to a the leader of one of our biggest trade partners giving his view (when asked by British media) of how it will effect relations between us.

Do you actually believe what you are arguing?
 
Never ceases to amaze how differently a situation can be viewed by different people...
 
DFreshKing said:
Assange has already said it was a insider in the US intelligence service who leaked the emails - not the Russians.

Craig Murray also met the source of the leak and confirmed him to be US intelligence.

People hear defending loose security on email because of age, techno phobia, whatever.

Imagine what the intelligence community thought about Clinton and Podesta having absolute power, and gmail.
Click to expand...

Assange fronts the organisation that leaked data right up until Trump was confirmed President Elect... Are they out of data now or are we still supposed to believe they are impartial whistle blowers? If he told me it was kangaroo on the plate I'd check under the sauce.


As for Craig Murray he's a conspiracy theory nutjob that will jump on anything that questions the CIA. Ask yourself why the source of the leak would just so happen to reveal himself to Craig feckin Murray.
 
Pexbo said:
Assange fronts the organisation that leaked data right up until Trump was confirmed President Elect... Are they out of data now or are we still supposed to believe they are impartial whistle blowers? If he told me it was kangaroo on the plate I'd check under the sauce.


As for Craig Murray he's a conspiracy theory nutjob that will jump on anything that questions the CIA. Ask yourself why the source of the leak would just so happen to reveal himself to Craig feckin Murray.
Click to expand...


They have leaked plenty since the election - you think they have stopped?

They have a decade long record of publishing the truth. No bias, no agenda, no tweaking - just factual information.

You question Assange but don't question the CIA or the unnamed sources, give me a break.
 
DFreshKing said:
They have leaked plenty since the election - you think they have stopped?

They have a decade long record of publishing the truth. No bias, no agenda, no tweaking - just factual information.

You question Assange but don't question the CIA or the unnamed sources, give me a break.
Click to expand...

Tell me you wrote that with a straight face. Seriously. Not a damn thing about Trump leaked, and you say they have no bias, and no agenda.
 
Pexbo said:
Leaking one sides truths while protecting another's is in no way comparable to a the leader of one of our biggest trade partners giving his view (when asked by British media) of how it will effect relations between us.

Do you actually believe what you are arguing?
Click to expand...

There's a well established etiquette that foreign leaders respond to such questions with platitudes. The standard reply goes: 'this is a matter for the British people, but regardless of what they decide, I'm confident our relations with Great Britain will ......'

Anything beyond those limits constitutes interference in another countries affairs. Obama should have kept silent, and if he wasn't blinded by vanity would have realized his contribution was likely to prove counterproductive.

The Russians weren't trying to be impartial. They wanted to influence the election in Trump's favour. Just as the entire Western media wanted to influence the election in Hillary's favour.
 
DFreshKing said:
They have leaked plenty since the election - you think they have stopped?

They have a decade long record of publishing the truth. No bias, no agenda, no tweaking - just factual information.

You question Assange but don't question the CIA or the unnamed sources, give me a break.
Click to expand...

I asked when their last democract leak was. It was one every few days up until Trump won.



I think the whole timeline (without any CIA info) is incredibly suspicious. Wikileaks have clearly targeted the Dems and the idea that Assange said it wasn't Russia somehow being proof ridiculous. Hes as much under suspicion as anyone, why would I trust his word?
 
Will Absolute said:
There's a well established etiquette that foreign leaders respond to such questions with platitudes. The standard reply goes: 'this is a matter for the British people, but regardless of what they decide, I'm confident our relations with Great Britain will ......'

Anything beyond those limits constitutes interference in another countries affairs. Obama should have kept silent, and if he wasn't blinded by vanity would have realized his contribution was likely to prove counterproductive.

The Russians weren't trying to be impartial. They wanted to influence the election in Trump's favour. Just as the entire Western media wanted to influence the election in Hillary's favour.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding Obama, when asked what effect it will have he has no obligation other than to be honest. He said it would not suit America if Britain left the EU and as such that could damage the trade relations. You don't think the Britons have a right to know what economic effect leaving the EU could have?

I assume you have similar disdain for Nigel Farage taking it upon himself to represent Briton giving pro-Trump speeches during the election?


So you do admit that Russia want Trump as president? For what reasons?
 
Pexbo said:
We'll have to agree to disagree regarding Obama, when asked what effect it will have he has no obligation other than to be honest. He said it would not suit America if Britain left the EU and as such that could damage the trade relations. You don't think the Britons have a right to know what economic effect leaving the EU could have?

I assume you have similar disdain for Nigel Farage taking it upon himself to represent Briton giving pro-Trump speeches during the election?


So you do admit that Russia want Trump as president? For what reasons?
Click to expand...

That has been answered a few times further up the thread, and asked both normally and rhetorically.
 
Pexbo said:
With "someone" hacking both the Democrats and the Republicans, yet only leaking Democract data the obvious suspicion is that they're simply colluding with Trump but you've got to wonder whether they also have unearthed some serious dirt on Trump himself and are using it as leverage. He's an absolute prime target even without running for President and you can guarentue he's got some nasty skeletons hidden somewhere. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they targeted him years ago knowing he planned to run at some point.
Click to expand...
Thoughtful contribution. Feasible, too.
 
Pexbo said:
We'll have to agree to disagree regarding Obama, when asked what effect it will have he has no obligation other than to be honest. He said it would not suit America if Britain left the EU and as such that could damage the trade relations. You don't think the Britons have a right to know what economic effect leaving the EU could have?

I assume you have similar disdain for Nigel Farage taking it upon himself to represent Briton giving pro-Trump speeches during the election?


So you do admit that Russia want Trump as president? For what reasons?
Click to expand...

Farage is a private citizen, and entitled to his private view, which I can't imagine Americans cared much about.

Trump has expressed some admiration for Putin, so it's natural for the Russian leader to prefer him to Hillary, who took a traditional hard line. More substantially, Trump has questioned America's commitment to NATO, which must have been music to Putin's ears.
 
The Firestarter said:
That's irrelevant. He said "no bias, no agenda, just factual information". Which is laughable.
Click to expand...

They have a criteria for publishing information as do most news agency.
Show me proof of bias, agenda or non factual information.

Not publishing something on Trump which they deem does not fit there clearly stated criteria for publication is not evidence unless you can prove it does fit their own stated criteria, its just a conspiracy theory.
 
DFreshKing said:
They have a criteria for publishing information as do most news agency.
Show me proof of bias, agenda or non factual information.

Not publishing something on Trump which they deem does not fit there clearly stated criteria for publication is not evidence unless you can prove it does fit their own stated criteria, its just a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
They are not a news organization. Supposedly, they accept anonymous leaks and publish them.
 
It seems people don't want to look at the information or believe it but below is the editorial criteria explaining the reason why no Trump information has been published.

Of course people are free to believe what they want but if you want to convince others or explain your position it might be good to provide to evidence to explain why otherwise it's purely a conspiracy theory.


Wikileaks**

We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish.

We had information that fit our editorial criteria which related to the Sanders and Clinton campaign (DNC Leaks) and the Clinton political campaign and Foundation (Podesta Emails).

No-one disputes the public importance of these publications. It would be unconscionable for WikiLeaks to withhold such an archive from the public during an election.

At the same time, we cannot publish what we do not have. To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump’s campaign, or Jill Stein’s campaign, or Gary Johnson’s campaign or any of the other candidates that fufills our stated editorial criteria.

As a result of publishing Clinton’s cables and indexing her emails we are seen as domain experts on Clinton archives. So it is natural that Clinton sources come to us.
 
DFreshKing said:
yes
Click to expand...
Right. Your argument is invalid. They are not a news organization. They are not journalists. In no way they do any investigations. For years, what they claimed to be, was a safe place for whistle-blowers, to keep their anonymity. But with this election, they lost whatever credibility they had. Assange has been a known Clinton basher for years. You can look up his various comments about her online. But let me just share a quote from him:
She is a war hawk with bad judgment who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people. She shouldn't be let near a gun shop, let alone an army. And she certainly should not become president of the United States”
Click to expand...

Does this man look unbiased to you?
 
The Firestarter said:
Right. Your argument is invalid. They are not a news organization. They are not journalists. In no way they do any investigations. For years, what they claimed to be, was a safe place for whistle-blowers, to keep their anonymity. But with this election, they lost whatever credibility they had. Assange has been a known Clinton basher for years. You can look up his various comments about her online. But let me just share a quote from him:


Does this man look unbiased to you?
Click to expand...

WikiLeaks is a multi-national media organization and associated library. It was founded by its publisher Julian Assange in 2006.

You also say Julian assange is not a journalist?

Julian Paul Assange (born 3 July 1971) is an Australian computer programmer, publisher and journalist. He is editor-in-chief of the organisation WikiLeaks, which he founded in 2006. He has won numerous accolades for journalism, including the Sam Adams Award and Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism.

What on earth are you talking about?

How has he won so many Journalist awards?
 
Red Dreams said:
He has pretty much said he is not mandated to divest himself of his business.
I think he will simply allow his children to manage his business. With how diversified he is, expect loads of conflicts of interest issues to arise.
Click to expand...

He is a believer that there is no such thing as bad publicity -- so with the expected investigations on his conflict of interests, he wouldnt really mind since it keeps the attention on him. Just look back on the ridiculous things he said in the last couple of years. The problem is that it will grind the work of governing down and wear the people down.
 
There was actually a leak every day up until the election and the day after. Wikileaks supposedly did receive info about Trump but which unsurprisingly was already published elsewhere.
 
MTF said:
Who was it that said (friend of his) that he just likes to sit at home and watch TV? The next President, ladies and gentlemen.
Click to expand...

Raoul said:
Last week he was watching Erin Burnett's show and live tweeted an insult to a Union leader who was on the show who questioned the Carrier deal.
Click to expand...

He's like that drunk, angry family member everyone has but with access to social media and millions of followers.
 
sglowrider said:
He is a believer that there is no such thing as bad publicity -- so with the expected investigations on his conflict of interests, he wouldnt really mind since it keeps the attention on him. Just look back on the ridiculous things he said in the last couple of years. The problem is that it will grind the work of governing down and wear the people down.
Click to expand...

Teflon Trump.

The guy is just nutso!
 
Red Dreams said:
Teflon Trump.

The guy is just nutso!
Click to expand...

And surrounds himself with other conpeople:

Zinke, Interior: http://intelligentdiscontent.com/20...navy-seal-career-and-defective-moral-make-up/

See his wiki -- he was a theatre manager but I remember him talking himself up on the challenges faced by seal team six (after the OBL elimination) from his past experiences. And his medals on his wiki were for service, not combat.

Linda McMahon, SBA: Selling theatre of the absurd and now in charge of small businesses promotion.

Tillerson, State: In oil industry his entire working career, how has to navigate issues ranging from nuclear proliferation to terrorism to coalition building, human trafficking to refugees to climate? Steep learning curve for sure!

List goes on...
 
sglowrider said:
And surrounds himself with other conpeople:

Zinke, Interior: http://intelligentdiscontent.com/20...navy-seal-career-and-defective-moral-make-up/

See his wiki -- he was a theatre manager but I remember him talking himself up on the challenges faced by seal team six (after the OBL elimination) from his past experiences. And his medals on his wiki were for service, not combat.

Linda McMahon, SBA: Selling theatre of the absurd and now in charge of small businesses promotion.

Tillerson, State: In oil industry his entire working career, how has to navigate issues ranging from nuclear proliferation to terrorism to coalition building, human trafficking to refugees to climate? Steep learning curve for sure!

List goes on...
Click to expand...

Oops in charge of errr. Is it Energy?

EDIT:

Tillerson may be very dangerous.

I still remember Trump saying Bill Clinton told him to run??

You could not make this up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.