Trump smacking the FBI down in public
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
The full stops in 'U.S.' are redundant.
To the idiots that keep harping on about this nonsense then facts are just fake news.
Do you agree with those positions?
I can't even remember what you asked me about. I'm sure I agree or disagree with whatever it was. Seriously, curious to hear your opinion first.
I'm hitting mid 40's soon so can completely understand what you mean having see it in abundance myself. Although not from the point of view you have. I can only sympathise. Luckily I can tell you are experienced and intelligent enough to know not everyone is the same. I'm with you in the fight against it all, and will happily stand side by side with you against any form of bigotry, racism or hatred. Not that that means much though.
I apologise, that wasn't my intention. I didn't think it was pertinent to the point I was trying to make and I think we just have to agree to disagree for now. I just think your faith in Trump is entirely misplaced and ultimately he will end up letting you and all his supporters down when you finally realise the only person he cares about is himself, and that his mental state and personality disorders, coupled with his massively inferior intelligence will go no way to getting the results you all want from him. I suspect they will just provoke quite the opposite reaction. Please feel free to tell me i'm wrong if that turns out to be the case, although I sincerely doubt it will be.
Hmm, I think we're quibbling here on something small. Trump's using these words as a slogan, some other nasty people used them as words in speeches and as their prominent campaign strategy. Trump's backroom team has verifiable nasty people in a similar way - Miller, Bannon and Sessions to name three, who've proven their outlook in word, print and in actions. Considering other events that have happened during the campaign and the presidency so far (Trump's muslim ban speech, Giuliani confirming its intention on television soon after, not mentioning jews during his holocaust speech etc etc), I think I have ample reason from drawing parallels between the two.
On the international terrorist attacks on US targets, how do they categorise them? Does that include targets where the US military are active in warzones, for example? On this part, sorry for not giving it full attention, I keep getting distracted by work
Last edited:
Trump smacking the FBI down in public
Biting the hand that feeds and all that.
Comey is probably having long, sleepless nights.
Of course everyone isn't the same! Not even close - haters always get more shine. Decent folk almost always get ignored...decency and kindness don't make for good headlines or generate enough clicks. It's always been that way and will continue to be.
And I've seen too much good to let the bad spoil things.
I get the strategy of undermining the press, but having a pop at the intelligence community baffles me. Is Bannon instructing Trump to do that or is he going off-book?
The visit to Langley suggested they wanted to strengthen relations, but that plan seems to have gone out the window now.
The visit to Langley suggested they wanted to strengthen relations, but that plan seems to have gone out the window now.
Maybe a bit of tit-for-tat after the FBI refused to knock down stories of Trump's ties with Russia?
Hmm, I think we're quibbling here on something small. Trump's using these words as a slogan, some other nasty people used them as words in speeches and as their prominent campaign strategy. Trump's backroom team has verifiable nasty people in a similar way - Miller, Bannon and Sessions to name three, who've proven their outlook in word, print and in actions. Considering other events that have happened during the campaign and the presidency so far (Trump's muslim ban speech, Giuliani confirming its intention on television soon after, not mentioning jews during his holocaust speech etc etc), I think I have ample reason from drawing parallels between the two.
On the international terrorist attacks on US targets, how do they categorise them? Does that include targets where the US military are active in warzones, for example? On this part, sorry for not giving it full attention, I keep getting distracted by work
We're quite far from that. To call it 'ample reason' is a bit of a leap. Uninspiring? Amateurish? Shoddy? You can go for any of those words or many similar ones to vent your frustration. Resorting to a tenuous connection when analyzing the campaign slogans to confirm it's anywhere near that point only serves to undermine any legitimate criticisms you may have of him and the administration.
I encourage you to check out the link when work isn't distracting you! Honestly, the more I read and interpret for you, the more likely I am to misrepresent information and muddy the waters. Let me know what you think when do.
Will do. And I'll refer back to your own statement of "it remains to be seen" in relation to your first paragraph
. You think it's tenuous, I think it's clearly directed and intentional by the likes of Bannon.Good
Apparently that trip went down like a proverbial lead balloon in the intelligence community. He completely ignored the fact that only a week before he had labelled them as Nazi's and he went on the offensive saying he was the victim etc. He spoke mainly about himself (as usual) and his election win. He lied continuously throughout the speech, which when surrounded by intelligent, smart people who have the real information to counter the lies, isn't the smartest move to make. He brought in over 30 of his own employees and they were all sat at the front and apparently instructed to whoop and cheer and applaud everything, which they did. The whole time they were doing that, the members of the IC were completely unimpressed and many stone faced according to reports. The final insult was as he went on and on about himself and the sacrifices he's made etc while he was stood in front of the CIA memorial wall and this really upset most of the people present.
If anything that day completely turned what remaining support he had inside the IC completely against him. Few of them trust or like him, and since then the leaks have only gotten worse. He's his own worst enemy and as predicted, his arrogance, narcissism and lack of intelligence will eventually be his downfall.
Good
Apparently that trip went down like a proverbial lead balloon in the intelligence community. He completely ignored the fact that only a week before he had labelled them as Nazi's and he went on the offensive saying he was the victim etc. He spoke mainly about himself (as usual) and his election win. He lied continuously throughout the speech, which when surrounded by intelligent, smart people who have the real information to counter the lies, isn't the smartest move to make. He brought in over 30 of his own employees and they were all sat at the front and apparently instructed to whoop and cheer and applaud everything, which they did. The whole time they were doing that, the members of the IC were completely unimpressed and many stone faced according to reports. The final insult was as he went on and on about himself and the sacrifices he's made etc while he was stood in front of the CIA memorial wall and this really upset most of the people present.
If anything that day completely turned what remaining support he had inside the IC completely against him. Few of them trust or like him, and since then the leaks have only gotten worse. He's his own worst enemy and as predicted, his arrogance, narcissism and lack of intelligence will eventually be his downfall.
Possibly the most futile crowd to which to lie to. The guys who know what's behind the curtains, and who spend part of their days looking into the politics of tinpot nations with deluded dictators or strongmen. Probably sounded familiar to them.
So can I expect the intelligence community to conspire against Trump?
Chicago's gang violence is rather notorious. If he managed somehow to make it look like he fixed it that would be a major coup.
Certainly some of them already have, right? With all the leaking stories to the press. In the way that in Watergate the FBI didn't conspire against Nixon institutionally, but an Associate Director in Mark Felt did.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/john-boehner-obamacare-republicans-235303
Refreshing honesty by Boehmer (now that he doesn’t have anything to loose; opportunist deluxe).
The GOP never cared about healthcare before Obama was elected:
Additionally you have to “they fix the flaws” with a pinch of salt, because there is no agreement about what the flaws are. Not even in the GOP. Some republicans think that the community rating itself is the problem, but that is a vital part of the ACA. You can’t fix that. Either you agree with it or you don’t.
Politics in a nutshell. The biggest political campaign about domestic policy of the last 10 year was nothing but a political charade.
Donald Trump says he is ‘totally in favour’ of ‘wonderful’ EU
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/donald-trump-says-he-is-‘totally-in-favour’-of-‘wonderful’-eu/ar-AAnhfct?li=BBoPWjQ
He's making it up as he goes along.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/donald-trump-says-he-is-‘totally-in-favour’-of-‘wonderful’-eu/ar-AAnhfct?li=BBoPWjQ
He's making it up as he goes along.
1. Hillary hasn't been convicted of fraud either, yet I (and many others, including Trump) believe she committed immoral actions close enough to fraud, but maybe not on the wrong side of the law. OTOH, Trump's case got quite far in court and wasn't dismissed. I can look at the information about his actions (like I did with Clinton) and decide whether they appear fraudulent. After all, I'm judging them by the same standard...
2. Agreed, but it points to a larger problem of lack of transparency.
3. Ivanka's clothes were on the WH website, for one. Ivanka and his son, who have official control of most businesses, sit in on many important meeting (source: his tweets)
4. Hillary courted Goldman openly, and as brazenly as Trump had done. There was no secrecy, never has been. Again: same standards - if you assume HRC was doing it behind the scenes, why isn't Trump (given that we know he's doing it openly for sure)
5. Yes, that unfortunately can neither be proven nor disproven. It's right, though.
6. So you agree that his cabinet has people appointed only due to their status and wealth.
7. There is zero merit to the argument that already rich people don't want to get richer. If it was true, a 95% marginal tax rate over a few million would be welcomed by the whole population. And you agree that he's already broken one of his fundamental promises.
8. He's the commander-in-chief, he takes responsibility for his failed decisions.
9. Meh.
10. He's known to be the most factually wrong president or candidate, ever, and his ignorance about foreign policy has been exposed repeatedly in interviews. Upgrading his information sources might help.
11. Just pure meh.
12. This is exhausting.
Trump smacking the FBI down in public
The leaks are currently in the interest of national security as they are intended to hinder Trump's destructive regime.
Could the poor relationship between Trump and the CIA/FBI cause a long lasting separation where two of the most powerful organisations in the world go even more 'rogue' than they supposedly have in the past? That's quite scary, no?
Or is it good that they're seemingly on our side, as far as mutual enemy goes?
Or is it good that they're seemingly on our side, as far as mutual enemy goes?
The little girl is a US citizen, who brother was killed in a drone strike (Obama's time), and now she's been killed, without a court case let alone a warrant. AFAIK the father was killed too before, and the grandfather or the mother wasn't a target, so I'm not sure you can say she was a human shield in a surprise raid that got her killed and her mother injured.
It's the ultimate erosion of fundamental rights.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/seal-american-girl-die-first-trump-era-u-s-military-n714346
I might be biased but these are patriotic organizations, they can be misguided but not malicious or selfish.
Demonstrably false. The FBI in particular has a long history of blackmailing/framing politicians to their own ends, in addition to various sabotage, intimidation, assassination attempts on labour and civil rights activists.
Yeah J Edgar was a right cnut
Yes, but its been a while, no? Have we seen similar in the past 20-25 years, where they were acting independent from the WH and/or outside the law?
How about a week before the election when Comey decided to feck Clinton?
Very much so a result of public backlash after the Church Committee, and the restrictions put in place have been gradually eroded ever since, particularly in the aftermath of 9/11 and the War on Terror. Also, Comey pretty much broke with protocol and tradition in his letters to Congress last October.
1. Yet it looks to be vindicating Clinton by claiming that it was a complete fabrication with the 'you bought it'. You can judge him all you want, and I'll keep judging her and not let her apologists completely quash it.
2. Better make a law.
3. Still can't lump them all into the same generic criticism. You've got the 'for one', and then you can carry on judging each case by the individual merits.
4. Trump's closer affiliated to organizations like Goldman Sachs due to the nature of his work. Hillary was supposed to be the candidate with honesty and integrity. People are basically criticizing Trump for being himself, whereas it made no sense for her to take that avenue. And if that's blatantly hypocritical as people want to point it out to be, there's obviously truth to what I'm saying since they still elected him despite knowing very well who he is and where he's from.
5. N/A
6. Sure, why not. What else do you expect from politicians.
7. Which politician hasn't done this. The only victories anti-Trump people get is finding problems that practically every other administration has.
8. Didn't really address what I said.
9. N/A
10. It's still a false assertion that he gets all of his news from those places.
11. N/A
12. Correct.
Well, I know that I'm biased on that point.
I can't believe multiple members, who are amongst the top posters in this tread, are writing novels in response to @Fener1907s troll posts, a well known liberal/left winger in the CE forum who had multiple posts slagging Trump before pronouncing in this very much thread (!!!) that he'll from now on act as a trump supporter.
That's either an indication that people barely read this thread despite having hundreds of posts in here or that they've so much time on their hands to actually play that game and act as if fener is a real trump supporter.
That's either an indication that people barely read this thread despite having hundreds of posts in here or that they've so much time on their hands to actually play that game and act as if fener is a real trump supporter.
He's trying to put up arguments real Trump supporters (Team Trump - go easy on Alex
) might put up and people are countering them. It's something different to do.
He is the devil's advocate and a good one.
Yes, but that's still a bit blurry at this point. To what end was it done? It certainly wasn't generally perceived as a winning blow when it happened, we (and everyone in DC) still though Hillary would take it regardless. So obviously I thought it was awful by Comey at the time (and should eventually cost him his job), and still think so. But I wouldn't yet extend that to mean that the FBI is similar to what it was through the decades under Hoover, or that it is institutionally aligned to do similar actions on a regular basis.
Of course, not really supposing to know what goes on within organizations like FBI, CIA, etc., I'm left to look for signs of their institutional restraint/following of law (and would particularly exclude instances where the CIA is doing what one might perceive as undesirable, but yet is direction/mission given by the WH, i.e. Iran '53). In countries where institutions are weaker than the US, by nature of being either the spies or the federal police (or both), those groups often achieve one or more of the following: a. De facto political power, often expressed by former heads moving into traditional political offices (see Putin), b. Personal wealth, usually via corruption, c. Perpetuation at the head of those agencies (Hoover at the FBI).
George H. W. Bush is arguably the only past CIA director to later hold high office, and at least to my knowledge the story has never been one in which he leveraged things he might know about opponents (even because CIA shouldn't know) to put himself in the best position. Of course, maybe he did and we'll never know. I don't know of any head of the CIA or FBI who later went on to become particularly wealthy, especially in unclear and suspicious ways. Again Bush comes to mind as one of the only wealthy ones, but I'm not that familiar with his business history to know the timing and nature of it. Most of them get a book deal or two at most, live comfortably but aren't as wealthy as thousands of business executives out there who've never had 1/1000th of the power or secret knowledge.
I'm not arguing this is a closed book, if someone puts forth arguments examples of the CIA, FBI or NSA leveraging their power in non-institutional ways then I can be swayed to be more suspicious of those agencies per se. But at this point I just argue that they don't have, or at least have not expressed, that much power to advance an agenda of theirs that is not agreed upon by the successive WH administrations and Congress. So I'm not looking to hear about what they do in other countries upon the orders of the White House, of the spying they do on American citizens with the authorization of Congress, etc. Looking for instances in which the tail is wagging the dog, so to speak. Or going off and doing its own wagging while the dog is asleep.
Yup. I was reading him lambasting Teresa May in the Corbyn thread yesterday
Tis a bit of fun and he's doing it well!yay....more, 'dishonest media' stuff.
fake news now
fake news now
- Status