Politics 2017 Act 6

[Zoraptor]

Fake News.

 

(1) Assange said that Rich was the source, so there isn't no evidence of it. Whether you believe him or not is up to you, same as it's up to anyone whether to believe anonymous leaks.

(2) his laptop would never contain emails to/from wikileaks, as that isn't how wikileaks works.

(3) Negative proved: "subsequent reporting by NBC News and other outlets confirmed Rich was not communicating with the group". Wow, proving he never communicated with them, now that's an achievement. Not from an internet cafe? via VPN? via TOR? through someone else's or open WiFi? nor through any of the sub 100$ devices you can buy with cash and chuck after using?

(4) "..the cyber security firm hired by the DNC to investigate the breach say those emails were stolen by Russian hackers". Yes. "The DNC, the FBI, every U.S. intelligence agency.." No. The only people to actually examine the DNC servers were the cyber security firm, confirmed by Comey.

 

What a load of old bollocks.

 

Fake News.

 

(there are times I wish xenforo had marquee tags...)

[Calax]

*randomly appears* I think the thing that says the most overall about how the administration is ever going to go is the fact that the WH staff (who are theoretically the most loyal) are currently leaking like a siv due to the level of incompetence they perceive above them. This is why the Times and Post are getting such delicious and juicy details. If you lose the loyalty of the very apparatus that you're supposed to he a piece of, you need to find another job.

 

Admittedly, Trump seems like the type of person who'd find a way to resign and declare victory, leaving Pence to clean up his mess (although Pence seems like he might bow out too given how little he's been in public).

 

Would be strange that if the guy who's playing the Sitcom Dad for the Republicans (Paul Ryan) ended up in the white house.

[Valsuelm]

Whether Seth Rich was offed because he leaked info to Wikileaks will more than likely never be known for sure.

 

However, anyone who thinks that such things do not happen is extremely naive.

[Pidesco]

[Lexx]

I am glad Iran has voted for Hassan Ruhani. Just saying.

 

You can continue with Drump now.

[Zoraptor]

It will be interesting to see if Rouhani and Iran gets any real dividends for his relative moderation. Last time they had Khatami for 8 years, got nothing out of it, and then had 8 years of Ahmadinejad.

 

Whether Seth Rich was offed because he leaked info to Wikileaks will more than likely never be known for sure.

 

Fact is, he probably wasn't- that's the default position and as always it's up to the person who asserts to prove if they think that it was Hillary with a .38 in a dark alley. And that they won't be able to prove as there's literally no proper evidence of it. Still, 'proving' that it was just a run of the mill murder with half truths and fallacies is both worse and hardly conducive to silencing conspiracy theories nor combating 'fake news'.

[Malcador]

 

*randomly appears* I think the thing that says the most overall about how the administration is ever going to go is the fact that the WH staff (who are theoretically the most loyal) are currently leaking like a siv due to the level of incompetence they perceive above them. This is why the Times and Post are getting such delicious and juicy details. If you lose the loyalty of the very apparatus that you're supposed to he a piece of, you need to find another job.

I would agree if Trump would appoint all those people, but that is not the case.

The problem is Obama appointed administration is lashing out because their candidate lost the election.

All that this situation proves is democrats should not hold ANY position of any level in government, ever.

If they are so petty as to endanger their own country just to make it difficult for the guy they don't like who happens to be the president now.

Any of this endangers the country?

 

Heh, and I used to joke that the Appleby's would neutralize him.

[Blarghagh]

Trump is certainly doing that, then.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

*randomly appears* I think the thing that says the most overall about how the administration is ever going to go is the fact that the WH staff (who are theoretically the most loyal) are currently leaking like a siv due to the level of incompetence they perceive above them. This is why the Times and Post are getting such delicious and juicy details. If you lose the loyalty of the very apparatus that you're supposed to he a piece of, you need to find another job.

I would agree if Trump would appoint all those people, but that is not the case.

The problem is Obama appointed administration is lashing out because their candidate lost the election.

All that this situation proves is democrats should not hold ANY position of any level in government, ever.

If they are so petty as to endanger their own country just to make it difficult for the guy they don't like who happens to be the president now.

Any of this endangers the country?

 

Heh, and I used to joke that the Appleby's would neutralize him.

 

 

You don't think that government employees not doing their job properly, actively refusing to do their job and leaking information left and right is not endangering?

 

You must have very low standards in Poland for leaders if you think Trump is so great ?

 

What exactly has Trump done that you think he is great.....remember most of things he claimed he has not done....like leave NATO and align  with Russia

 

I told you not to believe that 

[BruceVC]

 

Trump is certainly doing that, then.

 

Economy situation of US says otherwise.

 

That was and is a result of pure market sentiment and yes he has made things easier but the tax cuts and other promises are now in question. There is real doubt amongst certain investors 

[Malcador]

You don't think that government employees not doing their job properly, actively refusing to do their job and leaking information left and right is not endangering?

Well, if it's just people leaking embarrassing info, that's not really refusal to do their job. Sort of like the Wikileaks cable leaks, nothing that damaging other than making some group look silly or what not. Doubt ISIS or Al-Qaeda is being emboldened or the measures the US' defenses against that is being weakened.

[ShadySands]

Switching things up a bit

 

Biden disses Clinton: ‘I never thought she was a great candidate. I thought I was a great candidate.’

 

Appearing at the SALT hedge fund conference in Las Vegas, the possible 2020 presidential candidate weighed in on Hillary Clinton's 2016 candidacy in a way that Clinton supporters sure won't like.

 

“I never thought she was a great candidate,” Biden said, according to reports. “I thought I was a great candidate.”

 

Biden clarified, according to CNN, that “Hillary would have been a really good president.” But that isn't likely to make Clinton supporters feel much better.

 

Biden isn't the first leading Democratic figure with possible designs on 2020 to apparently slight Clinton. Clinton's 2016 primary foe, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), has repeatedly offered some version of this quote: “It wasn't that Donald Trump won the election; it was that the Democratic Party that lost the election.”

 

Those comments have definitely rubbed some Clinton supporters the wrong way, and Biden's are likely to even more so, given how direct they were.

 

Of course, Biden isn't saying anything that most every election analyst hasn't. You can make a pretty objective case that Clinton wasn't a great candidate, given she lost an election she was expected to win to an opponent who became the most unpopular president-elect in modern history. And even Clinton herself has acknowledged her shortcomings in appealing to voters.

[BruceVC]

 

Switching things up a bit

 

Biden disses Clinton: ‘I never thought she was a great candidate. I thought I was a great candidate.’

 

Appearing at the SALT hedge fund conference in Las Vegas, the possible 2020 presidential candidate weighed in on Hillary Clinton's 2016 candidacy in a way that Clinton supporters sure won't like.

 

“I never thought she was a great candidate,” Biden said, according to reports. “I thought I was a great candidate.”

 

Biden clarified, according to CNN, that “Hillary would have been a really good president.” But that isn't likely to make Clinton supporters feel much better.

 

Biden isn't the first leading Democratic figure with possible designs on 2020 to apparently slight Clinton. Clinton's 2016 primary foe, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), has repeatedly offered some version of this quote: “It wasn't that Donald Trump won the election; it was that the Democratic Party that lost the election.”

 

Those comments have definitely rubbed some Clinton supporters the wrong way, and Biden's are likely to even more so, given how direct they were.

 

Of course, Biden isn't saying anything that most every election analyst hasn't. You can make a pretty objective case that Clinton wasn't a great candidate, given she lost an election she was expected to win to an opponent who became the most unpopular president-elect in modern history. And even Clinton herself has acknowledged her shortcomings in appealing to voters.

 

Shady looking back now, and obviously this is just hypothetical,  do you regret ignoring what Obama said about voting for Hilary ?

 

For  me I still think Obama was much more legitimate but I also can now see the USA had to do some restructuring around certain SJ realities and how certain groups interacted. In a way if Hilary had won the USA  would have continued to appear to be "  progressive and liberal "  yet there was a hidden and real insidious toxicity  

[ShadySands]

[Malcador]

" the SALT hedge fund"

 

Hah.

[Volourn]

Problem is Hilalry Clinton wa sa poor chocie for a candaidate and ALL the Demo bigwigs including Obama as wella s the media who backed her were idiots to do so. If you were anti Trump, she should have been your very last choice for candidate. if the goal was to elect the very first female president she was the poorest choice to make that happen. At least when Obama was chosen to be  a nominee and ptoentially the first black president,  he didn't have  negative baggage up the wazoo hence why he won. Because, racists and sexists didn't cost Clinton the election. She did. I mean, if you have to rig/cheat in the primaires to get your 'Chosen One' to win that should be a sign that they don't deserve it.

[Gromnir]

obama criticizing hillary is kinda sad.  throw hillary under the bus is a gutless way to try and salvage obama's legacy.

 

 

hillary were, as we said many times, a terrible candidate.  we much prefered bernie.  but...

 

presidents get blame and credit for economic undeserved.  where the president does manage to champion major economic changes, the most substantial impact is rare felt significant during their presidency.  even so, obama gave us a serious messed up foreign policy situation and saw the US became political and cultural more polarized than anytime since the 1970s. 

 

obama had a mandate from the people when he were elected.  he had backing of Congress. to do so little with so much were inexcusable.

 

if obama had done his job a bit better, virtual any centrist democrat coulda' won in 2016.  rejection o' a future with hillary in the oval office were in large part a rejection o' obama's present and past failures in the same office.  as such, the only single person we would blame as much as hillary for hillary's loss were obama. gutless and weak for obama to blame hillary given the circumstances.

 

that said, hillary were a terrible candidate.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[ShadySands]

Obama said something too?

[Gromnir]

Obama said something too?

obama said he woulda' won if he coulda' run another time.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

Well.. he isn't wrong. He certainly would have been  more likely to beat Trump than Clinton. For starters, the racist Demos who didn't bother to vote for Clinton simply because she was white would have come out to vote for him.

[Gromnir]

But he suggested that Clinton, sure of victory, "played it safe," and missed opportunities to present a narrative that would have appealed to voters.-- npr  dec, 2016

 

again, obama were as much the cause o' hillary's loss as was hillary.  for obama to complain 'bout how hillary handled the campaign seemed, in vernacular vol could understand, weak sauce.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

obama criticizing hillary is kinda sad.  throw hillary under the bus is a gutless way to try and salvage obama's legacy.

 

 

hillary were, as we said many times, a terrible candidate.  we much prefered bernie.  but...

 

presidents get blame and credit for economic undeserved.  where the president does manage to champion major economic changes, the most substantial impact is rare felt significant during their presidency.  even so, obama gave us a serious messed up foreign policy situation and saw the US became political and cultural more polarized than anytime since the 1970s. 

 

obama had a mandate from the people when he were elected.  he had backing of Congress. to do so little with so much were inexcusable.

 

if obama had done his job a bit better, virtual any centrist democrat coulda' won in 2016.  rejection o' a future with hillary in the oval office were in large part a rejection o' obama's present and past failures in the same office.  as such, the only single person we would blame as much as hillary for hillary's loss were obama. gutless and weak for obama to blame hillary given the circumstances.

 

that said, hillary were a terrible candidate.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Sanders? I am very surprised to hear you say that....he promised things that appealed to some people who literally wanted him  to breakup the USA  investment banks. It would have been impossible but imagine how that would have appeared to anyone who disliked the USA

 

I still stand by Hilary but she wasn't the right person. In an inadvertent way numerous SJ groups I use to align to within the USA  had tainted the purpose of what SJ is suppose to  be about. I couldn't see it but after the election I realized most of us had become far too concerned with what we defined as "  offensive "   and not what actually the person really stood for. We also allowed some people to justify bad behavior but because we were convinced  it was about SJ we made excuses .....and that undermined the legitimacy of the original  campaign even more

 

Anyway its much better now for me and I learnt certain lessons 

[BruceVC]

Problem is Hilalry Clinton wa sa poor chocie for a candaidate and ALL the Demo bigwigs including Obama as wella s the media who backed her were idiots to do so. If you were anti Trump, she should have been your very last choice for candidate. if the goal was to elect the very first female president she was the poorest choice to make that happen. At least when Obama was chosen to be  a nominee and ptoentially the first black president,  he didn't have  negative baggage up the wazoo hence why he won. Because, racists and sexists didn't cost Clinton the election. She did. I mean, if you have to rig/cheat in the primaires to get your 'Chosen One' to win that should be a sign that they don't deserve it.

Sorry volo but the unanimous view is you cannot claim to have honestly known Hilary would not win because your criticism was very similar and repetitive of someone who didn't like her because you had a personal  bias 

 

You didn't really dismiss her with any reasonable  comments ....lets just be honest 

[ShadySands]

For you Bruce
 
Trump says he's actively considering breaking up big banks

President Donald Trump is considering breaking up the nation's biggest banks, a vow he had made during the presidential campaign then seemed to put on the back burner.

In an interview Monday with Bloomberg News, Trump said he is "looking at that right now."

Major averages slipped as the news broke, then rebounded, while government bond yields hit their highs of the day.

Bank stocks rallied, with investors taking a win-win view: Breaking up the big banks would open business opportunities for smaller institutions, while the large Wall Street firms would be worth more as separate entities than they are combined.

"The theory has always been the sum of the parts is worth considerably more than the whole," said analyst **** Bove, vice president for equity research at Rafferty Capital Markets. "You might find a lot of investors who say that (if) they're going to break up these banks, they're more [valuable] in pieces than they are together, I'm going to buy them."

[Gromnir]

gonna keep brief as is moot at this point. our approval o' sanders were not necessarily what he would bring to the Presidency but what he would have contributed to the campaign agenda and to the national dialog.  for instance, increasing income disparity is near the top o' our list o' concerns.  while we didn't necessarily agree with bernie, he were addressing the issues Gromnir saw as most important.  

 

people is no doubt tired o' hearing us suggest the president is less powerful than is assumed.  insofar as domestic issues is concerned, the president's greatest power is found nowhere in the Constitution.  the president has the ability to shape the national agenda as he/she is the single most visible elected member o' the fed government. bernie woulda' gotten important things done, even if he failed to get things done his way.

 

HA! Good Fun!