The Trump Era (Jan 20, 2017 – XXXX) Political Discussion Including Foreign Impacts

191012141526

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @chrisisall, there are enough checks and balances within the US system to maintain relative stability on a domestic front. We know that policies over the next 4(8?) years will be more conservative and that's to be expected, given which party won all three branches of government. That's what elections are for, and their results must be respected. That's something I hold sacred, and I'm somewhat sickened by that video above. I think that conservative polices will actually hold less sway with a sometime Democrat like President Trump in the White House than with a true right wing conservative like Ted Cruz, & perhaps you can take some comfort from that.

    I personally believe a massive shakeup is required on the foreign policy front however, and that's one area where I look forward to President Elect Trump's influence.

    I really don't know how smart President Elect Trump is. I do know he's not stupid though, and I also know that he demonstrated that he was far more street smart than his flatfooted opponent. She was outsmarted by the faster, more nimble and more effective Obama operation 8 years ago and that's why I knew all along that Mr. Trump was going to do the same thing to her this year. He surrounded himself with some very sharp people during the campaign who helped him win the election. At the end of the day, they had a charismatic candidate to work with though.

    The key players in his Cabinet show potential (despite, and not because of their wealth) & I look forward to seeing how they handle the job.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    At the end of the day, they had a charismatic candidate to work with though.

    Many historical deviants have been charismatic.
    Damn. So many adults need to grow up these days... I feel like I'm a fu*kin' HISTORIAN but I got a 'C' in World History in Junior High...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2016 Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Many historical deviants have been charismatic.
    Just because one is charismatic doesn't make one a deviant, even if previous historical deviants have been charismatic. Just like wealth is not a disqualifier for the highest office, neither is charisma.

    Not being on the ball is though, and that's what his opponent demonstrated several times, at least to me. As many have said, it was a binary choice, and the right person won as far as I'm concerned.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    the right person won as far as I'm concerned.
    That's because your reason has been destroyed by hope. If he's still in after the 19th you'll slowly begin to see, unfortunately. OR, maybe I've misread you, and you actually WOULD like to see more of a police state than we already have, with more poverty & civil unrest.
    :-O
  • I kindly like to refer people to the Dutch newsmagazine television program "Nieuwsuur" from public broadcaster NOS. It's a bit comparable to CBS News' "60 Minutes", and offers investigative in-depth reports and interviews related to the current (geopolitical) news.

    Some of the segments are done by the Nieuwsuur-reporters who are based in Washington DC and New York City. Most of them are entirely in English. So it's possible to get some insight in news matters from a Dutch perspective.

    The video embedded at the bottom of this news article was released on television early this week and is actually a report about Donald Trump's conflicts of interests, following the news that the new Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, is putting all his financial assets in a full blind trust:
    http://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2148245-tillerson-zal-ontdekken-dat-de-wereld-anders-is-als-minister.html?title=tillerson-zal-ontdekken-dat-de-wereld-anders-is-als-minister

    During the video New York Times reporter Eric Lipton and former advisor to President Obama, Norman Eisen, are giving their views on the conflicts of interests that will most certainly arise once Donald Trump assumes office as President of the United States next month.

    I just hope some people take some time in watching the embedded video. Because I do think that most people in here would like to get a president who doesn't follow Nixon's footsteps.

    Can someone else, with a VPN connection, see this video?
  • edited December 2016 Posts: 4,622
    chrisisall wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    Exxon greedy! Oh my. In business parlance, greedy isn't really a term.
    So you really ARE a hater of the poor, and mankind in general. All right, you have the right to be however fascist you want to be. This is becoming Amerika, and we love corporofascism! Profit above all else. Law of the jungle rulz. Have to thin the herd! We ARE animals after all....
    b-(
    I don't what you are talking about of course. You are losing your shit as irrantionally as the worst liberal race-baiting fearmonger.
    Greed is a moral term. It refers to putting your own self interests ahead of others, being selfish etc
    Exxon is a business. Even though it has a scary sinister sounding name, it's job is to drive revenues and make a profit, like any business. @dippytrippy 's problem is he is opposed big business per se. He assumes big business is "greedy" by definition. Naive he is you could say :P Lefties don't understand business. To them profit is a dirty word.
    Of course Exxon wants sanctions lifted. They want a piece of the Russian market.
    But greed is not a term that one intelligently applies to business. It doesn't apply.

    This is pretty simple stuff to understand. oi vey

    Edit: Like I said in the original posting (could have saved myself typing above, as it was already explained just fine) . Pretty basic stuff
    Of course Trump, Exxon, Putin might be working together, because there is money to made. I would think that's a given, but thanks for stating the obvious. Money, trade does make the world go round.
    Exxon greedy! Oh my. In business parlance, greedy isn't really a term.
    In your mind I guess, the pursuit of profit equals greed, which is great, except for the little niggling detail that the whole point of a business is to make a profit and grow.
    Any business that is not growing, is by definition dying. Any business owner will tell you that. You never sit still.
    It's to Exxon's credit that they might want to lift sanctions, and the only compelling reason they might want to, would be so that they can make more money.
    Are you a socialist? Business does not exist to make money?

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2016 Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    the right person won as far as I'm concerned.
    That's because your reason has been destroyed by hope. If he's still in after the 19th you'll slowly begin to see, unfortunately. OR, maybe I've misread you, and you actually WOULD like to see more of a police state than we already have, with more poverty & civil unrest. :-O
    So now we can add 'lover of authoritarianism' to illogical, naive, foolish, money-grubbing and 'Kool-Aid drinker/Fantasy Island client'. You chaps are going to run out of invectives to use at some point...I hope.

    President Elect Trump wants to enforce the existing laws (immigration as well as crime laws), and ensure that violence & crime is reduced everywhere. If that means more law enforcement officers and more effective law enforcement, then I'm all for it. I don't see him going around saying that minorities should be shot on sight etc. It's not like it's been all hunky dory over the past 8 years anyway, with all these civil unrest flare ups in various inner cities (Ferguson, etc.). I don't know how I feel about 'stop and frisk' personally, but I know something has to be done. Just so people know, that concept was not deemed unconstitutional (Clinton and Holt were wrong about that during the first debate). Rather, the manner in which New York was applying the policy was deemed unconstitutional and racially biased. This is something that can be fixed with proper training,. Moreover, Clinton was wrong to say that the judge deemed stop and frisk ineffective. The judge did not comment on its effectiveness.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/is-stop-and-frisk-unconstitutional/

    I don't agree with reinstating the 1033 blanket approval of old military equipment being transferred into police hands, which Mr. Trump said he would reinstate. Having said that, I think some targeted material which can help them with their jobs in cases of mass riots will be helpful. A proper debate has to be had on the issue. The most disgusting examples of police overreach that I have seen have been with hand to hand and direct gun violence, and not through use of military gear.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-expect-trump-lift-limits-surplus-military-gear-44122365

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_program

    I'm not in favour of politicizing this issue. I also am not in favour of passionate escalation via activism. Ultimately, this is a matter of public safety. Both that of officers, and of the general public. One must be mindful of 'escalation' though. I'm reminded of one of the best exchanges from Batman Begins:

    "What about escalation?" "Escalation?" " We start carrying semiautomatics, they buy automatics." " We start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor-piercing rounds."

    Things are definitely getting out of control, and the President Elect firmly believes that more jobs and employment is the way to improve the situation. I happen to agree with him on that premise. I may disagree with him on the mechanics of how to get more jobs, but at least he's focused on it, and not dismissive that the situation can't be fixed. That's a start to me and I want to see where it leads. The status quo in the inner cities is not tenable.
    bj: Smoke. Mirrors. Pay no attention to the Rooshian behind the curtain....
    I said many months back on the old thread that the Administration was going to move forward with its Russia Demonization & war mongering plan if Hillary won. Her 'Syria No Fly Zone' was a call for direct engagement with Russia. I suggested then that she would use this strategy to mobilize the country against a common enemy, because she had limited leadership skills. Well she lost, and now they are trying to move forward anyway before the Trump Administration takes over.

    It's all connected to weapons sales and EU expansion imho. Note the recent pronouncement by Merkel and Holande (two leaders on very shaky ground politically) to extend Russian sanctions. Keep in mind that the European Project is in trouble, and is looking for a common enemy to consolidate its citizens around. They are actually trying to get funding for a 'EU Army' (That's right. Certain folks in Europe want their own Army. Well, what better way to get it than to whip up some tensions in order to sell it):

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/angela-merkel-francois-hollande-new-sanctions-russia-ukraine-war-putin-crimea-france-germany-eu-a7473676.html

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/743613/Ukip-Bill-Etheridge-EU-army-rant-European-Parliament

    This Russian news is nothing new. US officials were blabbing about it prior to the election. Even Mr. Biden commented on it and threatened retaliation in October, soliciting a response from Mr. Putin:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/vladimir-putin-russia-hacking-cyber-attack-us-government-retaliation-joe-biden-a7364986.html

    Every major government spies on every other major government. The US does it. China does it. Russia does it. They all do it.

    A person who is connected with wikileaks said that they didn't get the DNC emails from Russia. Of course, he can be discredited, but his story has quite a bit of detail in it.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

    Podesta's emails were hacked because he gave out personal information from his gmail account (yes you read that right, I said gmail) when he got a phishing request. Anyone with half a brain, and certainly someone in his position, should have known to be wary of a phishing request. What's the betting that he gave his personal details to a Nigerian prince as well? What a knucklehead.
    Qx8fqJ1.jpg

    Here is the follow up email from his staff to fix the shambles (it was too late):
    852Mch7.jpg
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    bondjames wrote: »
    So now we can add 'lover of authoritarianism' to illogical, naive, foolish, money-grubbing and 'Kool-Aid drinker/Fantasy Island client'. You chaps are going to run out of invectives to use at some point...I hope.


    Don t forget Russian propagandist and fake news advocate.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    So now we can add 'lover of authoritarianism' to illogical, naive, foolish, money-grubbing and 'Kool-Aid drinker/Fantasy Island client'. You chaps are going to run out of invectives to use at some point...I hope.
    Don t forget Russian propagandist and fake news advocate.
    Indeed. The most damning crime of all it seems. Should I be worried?

    Facebook seems to have been coerced to limit certain newsites from being shared. This is the start of the real 'police state' as far as I'm concerned:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebooks-fake-fix-for-fake-news-1481932361

    "Facebook can run its business as it pleases, but this fake fact-checking exercise is likely to damage its brand and open itself to political pressure from every corner, including from Mr. Trump. Meantime, progressives will continue to invent controversies to avoid acknowledging the (true) fact that American voters rejected their presidential candidate for real reasons based on real concerns about the real condition of their country."
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Fighting fascism with fascism, what a novel idea.
  • The true fact you keep trying to forget is that 3 Million more Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. The Electoral College has yet to prove their worth or lack of such in this situation. We'll see THAT on Monday. In the meanwhile, please understand that even if he is inaugurated, The Trump Error will be one with a very questionable legitimacy in the minds of the majority of the American public.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    None of them are legitimate.
  • Fighting fascism with fascism, what a novel idea.

    Something like fighting fire with fire. If it works in nature, why not with human nature?
  • None of them are legitimate.

    I'm quite sure that GW Bush (aka George the Lesser, aka The Shrub) was the legitimate offspring of Bush the Senior.
  • edited December 2016 Posts: 4,622
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think if you look at how things are going, Putin has been doing this kind of nationalist populist stuff far longer than the US or the EU has. I just believe it makes natural sense that we would become allies, now that we are ideologically more aligned than ever.
    I wouldn't quite say allies. More cooperate where there are shared common interests and resist elsewhere. The Cold War is colder than ever before, and that's not a smart thing.

    Bob Gates (Former Secretary of Defense under both W. Bush & Obama) who recommended Rex Tillerson to Mr. Trump for Secretary of State, commented yesterday that being friendly with Russia is different from being friends.

    He thinks one of the challenges facing the next president is "how to thread the needle of stopping the downward spiral in US/Russian relations that is potentially quite dangerous, and at the same time push back against Putin's aggressiveness, bullying and general thuggery." Speaking of Tillerson, he said that having someone who knows where Putin is coming from, and how he thinks is a tremendous positive.

    The CIA is hankering for increased sanctions on Russian and weapons sales to Ukraine. Look for that to be the next play, since they were shamed in Syria (as per my earlier post, their $500m rebel/ISIL financing game came to an end when Russia got involved).

    Right - Not allies, more comrades! ;)

    Anyway I think it would be a complete disaster to impose more sanctions on Russia. How much is a country supposed to take before they consider war as the only option. I mean, seriously, how far are we going to push them with this paranoia and hatred?


    Then you listen to see what the democrats have to say about China in the south china sea, and the immigrant crisis, and they are mostly silent, looking the other way! I'm sure if the US was deciding to put armed forces in the south china sea, then the democrats would suddenly wake up and have a problem with it. We've seen it before, and we have to start and drown out that hysterical shrillness from our political discourse, as the American people have done when they decided to not listen to progressive propaganda and vote for Trump to make america great again!

    The west has changed an insane amount in just the year of 2016! With this much happening in the space of just 12 months, I think we have to look for a new voice of command than the progressive voice that we followed under Obama. I know that Putin is not a righteous man or leader, but he does know a lot more about the kind of political territory we are entering than we do, and if there is anything we have learned from the effects of Globalism it's that there are far worse, more insidious forces in the world than Putin and Russia.

    Either way, I am very much a fan of Trump's position of Russia as a new cooperative relationship, and ESPECIALLY fond of Trump position on China. They have had it easy by 8 years of subservience and appeasement under Obama, so it is refreshing and encouraging to see a politician treating China with the degree of weariness and skepticism that is deserved. Trump is not afraid to use the stick as well as the carrot, and I like that about him...

    Very well said. Much gold in the above posting. Tough medicine for the whiners to process, but reality is a bitch.
    ===
    The reason all the lefties have wandered over from their safe space thread, that the rest of us don't even look at , is they are losing their minds that they lost an election, that all their enablers said they had in the bag. Lefties like big government and correct thinking. They can't abide anyone going off reservation or off message.
    And in this particular election they can't abide that the will of the people, trumped the bully tactics of liberal media howlers.
    The reason btw that a disproportionate amount of media swallow the liberal koolaid, is that the whole ideology appeals to a media ego ..that faux sense of sanctimonious outrage at everything. One group ( the liberal know-it-alls) need to be telling everyone else how to think and persecuting those that don't conform, while the other (media) crave being the big voiced famous worship-me messenger.
    Both entities are driven by hubris. Humility is in very scarce supply.
    Watch liberal types debate sometimes amongst themselves. You can see it at City council meetings and such. I used to see it, when i attended Liberal Party conventions (don't ask)
    They generally don't simply discuss the merits of an issue, and then hold a vote to see how the majority rolls.
    Rather, what they do is try to frame the discussion in terms of what is the correct thinking and what is the position they should all be agreeing on, based on how it might conform to the correct thinking.
    Normal people though just argue their positions and prepare to defer to the majority, understanding there really is no correct position, no "secret knowledge" --the term famed screenwriter-director David Mamet used in his eminently readable tome "The Secret Knowledge" subtitled "How I Stopped Being a Brain Dead Liberal".
    Mamet concludes btw that there is no secret knowledge. No kidding.

    Here's an example of the pc brain at work. As a young guy, I was naturally interested in what might come of strip-club g-string-on-or-off debates, in my local township.
    I have to admit, as a patron of one of the local establishments, I was rooting for the "off" side to win
    The debate was eye-opening. Conservative, or just normal non-lefty types were debating the issue on its merits, citing community standards mainly, arguing pro and con accordingly, based on their own and their constituents perception of community standards.
    Business considerations really didn't carry much weight, as it did seem to be more a standards issue. It was a quite civil discussion.
    The lefties though were at each others throats discussing the matter as a "rights" issue. The women had the right to display their bodies if they wanted to. Others, no no no this is sexist (actually exploitive would be the better term, but in lefty parlance, sexist is way sexier.)
    Basically the lefties were fighting over what the correct thinking was, that everyone should bow down to, Mamet's secret knowledge if you will.

    At the end of the day, the bottoms-stay-on vote won the day, due mainly to community standards considerations.
    I was of course saddened, but maybe better educated in the ways of democracy.
    It made far more sense for the community to vote the way it did. Me and my horn-dog idiot friends were not the majority. The girls didn't seem very bothered either.
    Liberal types though would prefer to issue a rights decree from the highest level of government possible and to hell with what the actual communities might want.

    This is the role government plays in a free society. The community decided the rules by which the business might operate. The business pushed for relaxing of standards. The community said no. In another community, it might have said yes.
    This is why government need be decentralized. It's more democratic, than lefty types imposing their correct-thinking will from on high.

    ==as for Putin and Trump. This is basic stuff. Great post above from @mendes

    The geo-political reality of the situation is nicely outlined.

    Both Trump and Putin are alpha. Both want to make their countries great. They figure they can maybe do that by working together. They are both only in it for their own countries though. There is really no natural cultural alliance here such as England and USA.
    The partnership,alliance ,whatever, will only last so long as each country is benefiting.


  • edited December 2016 Posts: 3,564
    timmer wrote: »
    The reason all the lefties have wandered over from their safe space thread, that the rest of us don't even look at , is they are losing their minds that they lost an election, that all their enablers said they had in the bag.

    Wrong as usual @timmer. It's nice to know some things never change.

    I can't speak for anyone else -- believe it or not, we lefties don't all march in lockstep -- but the reason I'm over here is because I don't believe in cutting off the dialogue. I'm also in favor of knowing (rather than guessing) what one's opponents are thinking. You might try it some time.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    So now we can add 'lover of authoritarianism' to illogical, naive, foolish, money-grubbing and 'Kool-Aid drinker/Fantasy Island client'.
    Well, yeah basically.
    If you don't see Trump as the biggest threat to our country (and the world) then one, many or all must apply.
    bj, you seem well educated, but sometime we get over-educated.
    Too much in our heads to properly and logically process.
    There exists in the midst of complexity a level of simplicity. It's Ying & Yang, bro.

    Trump is GW stupid combined with Nixon lawlessness, and that could equal another Hitler.

  • edited December 2016 Posts: 4,622
    @earmuffs
    actually sour grapes is what you are crushing but I digresss
    just a random sample of your ramblings below. Disengenuous as always, not to mention rife with assumptions that are just wrong.
    Some things never change. Sigh
    To wit....
    So much for the numbers, now let's look at the rhetoric: Subjunctive (what Trump "might" do in office) vs. indicative (what Hillary HAS done.) You keep trying to pretend that Trump has no history of things that he HAS done while not in office. Quite the contrary: Trump has repeatedly stiffed his contractors and declared bankruptcy to defraud his investors. I think there have been a few instances of pussy-grabing that he's acknowledged. The list goes on. But what these dueling bits of rhetoric really boil down to is this: much of the debate on this entire topic (all three threads involved) might easily have gone into a different topic thread entirely, the one titled, "Do You Believe In Fortune Tellers?" Because, at base, that's what much of this has been about. On one side, people believe that Trump will be a disastrous president; on the other side, people believe the same of Hillary. We're all using our various crystal balls as best we can and none of us have anything other than past performance to go on.

    The fortune teller bs
    Quaint but wrong. People supported and continue to support Trump because they are energized by his approach. Not predicting future.
    I need not elaborate on the approach.( I don't have all night, like you seem to do.) Suffice to say, you don't like it. Obama was more your speed.
    If we're boiling, that's what actually boiling.
    Trump stiffing contractors, bankruptcy blah blah blah. I realize business is not your forte, but all sorts of shit goes down in business. Bankruptcy is actually a perfectly normal, legal, advisable, predictable, ethical response to certain situations.
    Businesses are always "stiffing" each other one way or the other. There is no way to play without taking a few hits. Business leaders are always sniping at each other. They are in competition after all. They form alliances like anyone else.
    "cutting your losses" is also a very common business action, that all businesses routinely do and need apply.
    Businesses grow and also fail. Many good decisions only happen because they were proceeded by several bad decisions.
    What tends to kill a business is not so much bad decisions but a failure to make decisions.
    What distinguishes the business leader mostly IMO, is that they are decision makers. They chart direction and change direction as needed.
    Trump is capable in this regard. Moreso than the incumbent.
    Hillary would have been an awful choice as President because IMO she's motivated entirley by power.
    Trump loves the spotlight too, but unlike her, he seems to have a direction that he wants to plot. He's accomplished his business goals and other personal goals.
    Now he wants to make America Great Again.
    I do believe he is in sincere in that approach.
    The discussions we will see over the next 8 years is how effective the approach is. There will be mistakes and there will be those looking looking to undermine the approach...............and of course there will be the whiners, trench diggers if you will. :P


    "Pussy grabbing" please. I can honestly understand that both women and men might not vote for Trump because of this colourful utterance 10 years ago or whenever.
    And this is fair, because we can't pretend we aren't offended if we are.
    I make this distinction, to contrast with being offended because someone with a bully pulpit tells you you should be, even if you aren't.

    But plenty of others don't care because they get the context. Guys talk a lot of shit, especially to each other about their female conquests and prowess.
    Maybe you've led a sheltered life and don't have experience with this element.
    Trump is of an alpha womanizer ilk, same with fellow Presidents Billy Clinton and JFK I would add. Its consistent with the alpha womanizer approach to jocular discourse.
    Its common in locker rooms, not as much pro-locker rooms where media is omiprescent, but very common in lower profile environs, hip-hop culture, rock music subculture and on and on.
    Does this really need explaining? What do you think Tiger, Dikko and Bond were going on about in their YOLT Japan booze-ups, complete with trips to the Geisha parlours.
    Their hedonistic extra-curriculars though,really don't define these guys. They were all highly effective intelligence operatives.
    If someone finds what Trump says offensive, I won't quibble. I won't even tell them they should find Clinton's behaviours offensive, as they might like Clinton more than Trump and thus give him a pass.
    Personally, I give all three Prez's a pass, because I understand the context. I've known a lot of guys just like them in both sports and social circles. And such utterances don't define them. Some of these guys I like, and others I though were jerks.
    You just happen to think Trump is a jerk.
    Actually though, I am not sure I give Clinton a pass. Only in a general sense, in that I won't hold his nature against him, however some of his accusers have been rather convincing.

    As for the three womanizing Presidents of note. JKF I greatly admire, Clinton I think was a waste of space, and his dallying with interns in the White House maybe does define him, while Trump I have expectations for, which is probably the most prudent way to put things at this early juncture.

    But thank you for more baseless assumptions. Some thing never change.
    Just maybe putting out your opinions might be helpful as opposed to some of these ipso facto utterances you like to belch up.
    You might try it some time.


  • edited December 2016 Posts: 4,622
    timmer wrote: »
    The reason all the lefties have wandered over from their safe space thread, that the rest of us don't even look at , is they are losing their minds that they lost an election, that all their enablers said they had in the bag.

    Wrong as usual @timmer. It's nice to know some things never change.

    I can't speak for anyone else -- believe it or not, we lefties don't all march in lockstep -- but the reason I'm over here is because I don't believe in cutting off the dialogue. I'm also in favor of knowing (rather than guessing) what one's opponents are thinking. You might try it some time.
    Actually I am right. You are here because you want to bitch and can't abide that others won't engage. Its not dialogue its whining and you want to be heard. Blah blah
    And we do know what whiners such as yourself are posting. Its the same old song.
    Not interesting.
    But clearly ditch digging demands an audience.


  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2016 Posts: 17,694
    timmer wrote: »
    "Pussy grabbing" please. I can honestly understand that both women and men might not vote for Trump because of this colourful utterance 10 years ago or whenever.
    And this is fair, because we can't pretend we aren't offended if we are.
    I make this distinction, to contrast with being offended because someone with a bully pulpit tells you you should be, even if you aren't.

    But plenty of others don't care because they get the context. Guys talk a lot of shit, especially to each other about their female conquests and prowess.
    Sorry man, I may have talked a bit of shit like that in my teens & very early 20's, but arrested adolescence is a PROBLEM. :P
    Trump never grew up. He never had any obstacles to overcome or any goals to reach.
    He impressed with his money.
    He's a 14 year old in a 70 year old body. Presidential material? F**K THAT.
    Clinton was a jerk, BTW. He should have said "Yeah, I dallied, so what?"
    Difference is, he was trying to be a horndog in private, whereas Trump revels openly in it.
    But, Trumpeteers will love this creep no matter what, eh?

  • edited December 2016 Posts: 4,622
    bondjames wrote: »

    I don't personally have a problem with wealthy people(I'm trying to become one myself), as long as they are competent and put the country first. In fact, they may be less likely to be swayed by financial benefit due to their wealth. I'm sure most of Mr. Trump's cabinet will be forgoing a lot of financial opportunity in order to serve the country.

    I personally have been sure you that you're an unrepentant apologist for Trump for quite awhile. Now I know why. You keep on lying down with those pigs, @bj. I'm not sure that they'll actually accept you as one of them, but at least you've got a goal. But if you really think they're going to be forgoing a lot of financial opportunities then you're a fool. rather than a mere apologist.
    @walrusears

    My goodness. You really do live in an alternative reality. You chastise the good @bondjames because he aspires to be wealthy.
    Like its a club for "pigs" Maybe you have no ambition in life.
    If @bondjames ever becomes wealthy it will be because he worked damn hard at it, not because some oink-oinks let him into a club. And guess what, he won't even be a member of a club unless he wants to fork out the cash to join one.
    Sigh, this is the socialist mentality. Drag everyone down to a lowest common denominator.
    A free society though provides opportunity for prosperity, and thus for men and women of good will to do great things, with or without accumulating wealth.
    But those that do achieve (and achieve is the word) wealth, have freedom to do great things with it, which is not to discount the great things men and women of more modest means might do.

    Personally I will never achieve great wealth because I am far too busy. I have to watch at least three hockey games a week, and NFL playoffs are coming up too.
    I also have a back log of blu-rays to watch. I have put a moratorium on future purchases, until I am caught up with what I have.
    I must finish Flash season 2. Suddenly the fates have decided that I must be fully immersed in the DC tv universe. After Flash 2, I have both Supergirl Season One, and Legends of Tomorrow Season Two to watch.
    Then there is my stalled 2016 Bondathon, which is only 4 films deep so far. Its a random draw affair. DAF, TB, GF and the TLD are done. I have drawn OP as #5.
    I'd like to get back to that at some point, but DC universe TV blu-ray takes precedence.
    Plus I have books to read, and a half-assed social life to maintain, plus family, and get a few rounds of badly played golf in, when the weather clears.

    I have no time to put the effort in, required to make lots of money. I go to work five days a week. Like most workers I figure I should be paid at least double for what I do, but the bastards I do work for, don't seem to come around.
    I hit do hit pay dirt with the odd contract, but mostly its this tiresome, what-the-market will bear drudgery.

    But if @bondjames wants to put the work in, I say go for it. I encourage such effort Making lots of money does require a work ethic.
    Its not a club you get invited into.

    @bondjames if he strikes it rich, will probably buy the first round. Might even spring for your grumpy self.

    walrus-04.jpg
  • Posts: 4,622
    chrisisall wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    "Pussy grabbing" please. I can honestly understand that both women and men might not vote for Trump because of this colourful utterance 10 years ago or whenever.
    And this is fair, because we can't pretend we aren't offended if we are.
    I make this distinction, to contrast with being offended because someone with a bully pulpit tells you you should be, even if you aren't.

    But plenty of others don't care because they get the context. Guys talk a lot of shit, especially to each other about their female conquests and prowess.
    Sorry man, I may have talked a bit of shit like that in my teens & very early 20's, but arrested adolescence is a PROBLEM. :P
    Trump never grew up. He never had any obstacles to overcome or any goals to reach.
    He impressed with his money.
    He's a 14 year old in a 70 year old body. Presidential material? F**K THAT.

    Ok so you are offended, or maybe outraged.Put a tick in the outraged column. No vote for Trump. Fair play. Actions have consequences.
    I will put a similar tick in the Clinton box.
    Mind you I don't really care, unless he did actually rape someone, but it appears he did, so I guess another tick in the got-away-with-it column.

    ===Along with the false notion that Trump somehow said that he was in favour of sexual assault, there is also this lefty spin floating about that Trump mocked a disabled reporter.
    Those promoting the lie, do know better. They watch Trump enough to know that the dismissive gesture aimed at the reporter, is what he aims at a lot of idiots he doesn't have time for.
    This idiot reporter just happened to be disabled. But do crank up the distortion machine.
    I won't say fair play, because it isn't, but this is what goes down in elections.
    What's amazing though, is just how many seemingly intelligent and supposedly fair-play lefty types swallowed this and put it out there like its fact. eg @earmuffs
    Truth is they just hope its true and thus put it out. Can't waste a good slander, just because it might not be true.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,694
    timmer wrote: »
    A free society provides opportunity for prosperity, and thus for men and women of good will to do great things, with or without accumulating wealth. But those that do achieve (and achieve is the word) wealth have freedom to great things with it, which is not to discount the great things men and women of more modest means might do.
    Good will?
    Not "Good and bad will"?
    You make me sad. Sad that so many think this way. Educated folks that dream the dream, yet reject the reality.
    Trump is no Bruce Wayne.
    =))
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    It's getting a bit aggressive in here. Unite guys. ;)
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm not surprised by this at all. As I said yesterday, the CIA has already sold $500m of weapons to Syrian rebels in a wasted exercise (much of that got into ISIL & Al Nusra's hands).

    They were also reportedly running an operation in 2012 in Benghazi supplying arms to the Syrian rebels sourced from the armouries in Libya (which they raided after Gaddafi fell). I only hope this didn't result in the attack which killed the ambassador.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html

    Finally, I'm quite certain this Russian story is a 'smoking gun' (or is that yellow cake?) in order to get Congress to approve further Russian sanctions and weapons sales to Ukraine (the so-called 'retaliation' that Mr. Obama alluded to today). Time will tell if I'm right on this. The CIA, Europeans & American Foreign Policy establishment obviously have an agenda, have seen their ambitions thwarted in Syria by Russia, and will want their pound of flesh, no matter what the incoming Administration's plan may be.

    Here's an interesting article I came across from a Canadian outlet on the President Elect:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trump-transition-opinion-1.3894622

    In other news, I'm sorry to see these misguided celebrities wasting money and embarrassing themselves to no avail as they will learn on December 19th:

    1. What difference does it make if our own weapons ended up illing Stevens? I'm being part cynical here. The U.S. loves to make guns and loves to sell them, too. So we can't go acting "shocked" when we are attacked by our own weapons. In fact, if you want to take this a step further, could an argument not be made that the Libyans who klilled Stevens were a secret operation run by the CIA to intentionally hurt Obama (and HRC in the process) just prior to the 2012 election? After all, once we start spinning conspiracy theories, anything goes.

    2. The CIA doesn't have an agenda here. Sometimes the truth is the truth. Russia hacked the DNC and likely did so to hurt HRC's chances. I'll go with that as a fact. When Trump supporters start turning this around as "whining" and "trying to make Trump illegitimate," they are missing the point. The CIA never made a case that the hacjs cost HRC the election. And Obama never made that case, either. The issue here is that Russia (under the direction of Putin) attempted to undermine our democracy, and the President elect not only fails to criticize Putin on this, but he continues to reach out to him and try to be buddy-buddy. That constitutes a serious issue...and confirms to me that the far-right has lost its collective mind: Russia hacking us is just fine if it helps us defeat the Democrats. Putin > Clinton. Putin > Obama. Sorry, but this is NOT the party of Reagan anymore.

    3. The actors can do as they wish. The first amendment allows it. (For now.)
  • edited December 2016 Posts: 4,622
    chrisisall wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    A free society provides opportunity for prosperity, and thus for men and women of good will to do great things, with or without accumulating wealth. But those that do achieve (and achieve is the word) wealth have freedom to great things with it, which is not to discount the great things men and women of more modest means might do.
    Good will?
    Not "Good and bad will"?
    You make me sad. Sad that so many think this way. Educated folks that dream the dream, yet reject the reality.
    Trump is no Bruce Wayne.
    =))
    Shakes head aghast. Say what!!!!
    No,not good and bad will.
    Those of bad will, will not do great things obviously.
    You make me sad.
    We discourage a free society because bad people might do bad things? Huh I guess that's why we have law and order and cops and courts and jails and stuff.
    Murdock wrote: »
    It's getting a bit aggressive in here. Unite guys. ;)
    Not likely, there is much trench digging to do apparently. @earmuffs would be digging his ditches, in every thread available if there were more. He is obsessed.
    In real life he is probably a dangerous party crasher.
    Now if @bondjames would post more pictures of girls, that would be helpful.
    He was doing so well for awhile. He is driving this bus.
    Here I'll help.
    I do like the wings at Hooters. We have a few here in the great white north
    donald-jtrump-poses-with-hooters-girls-at-the-donald-trumps-ultimate-picture-id76539954

    I don't know what this picture is all about, but whatever is is, I approve.
    That's just awesome. Not even Mick Jagger could pull that.
    Donald-Trump-Vince-McMahon-Make-WWE-History-RTuv7X3GWGml.jpg

    The prudish liberalamerica website likes to quote Trump.
    They post quotes like this one, like its "oh so awful" boo hoo.

    6. “Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers. The person who came up with the expression ‘the weaker sex’ was either very naive or had to be kidding. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye — or perhaps another body part.” (1997)

    The work that Trump has done with the Miss Universe pageant is exemplary
    I love these girls. The Miss Universe Pageant is a truly great event
    @bondjames wants to be wealthy
    @beatlemuffs wants to dig trenches, here there and everywhere, and throw mud on Miss Universe probably
    @chris wants a StarTrek world
    @murdock wants peace

    @me wants a world where Miss Universe is fetted everywhere as a universal ambassador for peace love, good will and understanding.

    donald-trump-miss-universe.jpg

    I do like these pictures, but I have to admit Trump does seem like a bit of a lech based on these pictures, but in reality what they show is that the guys loves women, the pc be damned!

    one more Miss Universe in all her intergalactic glory
    Long may she reign, although her successor will crowned very soon
    I think it would be a nice touch to have her accompany Trump on state visits, as a nod towards universal peace and harmony. I do mean this.
    62a1e48bfddf92b8f1af08edf7c12667.jpg



  • edited December 2016 Posts: 6,432
    Can I have the blonde to Trumps left in the grey dress, I like a woman who looks after herself (Just realised they are WWE female wrestlers with Trump)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,694
    timmer wrote: »
    donald-trump-miss-universe.jpg
    EEeeeeewwwue. Perve nation.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,694
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/an-open-letter-to-mr-trum_b_13633110.html

    "Dear Mr. Trump:

    I refer to you as “Mr” because I do not recognize you as my president. Or anyone’s president for that matter. You lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, more than any president in United States history. And with the likely help of Russian hacks, oppressive voter ID laws, other acts of voter suppression and election fraud, and an embarrassingly neutered media, you squeaked out a measly 306 electoral votes, placing you in the bottom fifth of all presidents ever.

    But in true Trumpian fashion, you’ve boasted of a “massive landslide victory.” Sorry, pal. The only “landslide” was Hillary Clinton’s, as she received more votes than any president in history except for Barack Obama in 2008. One thing’s for sure though: you were right about the election being “rigged.” For you.

    Now that we’ve gotten the niceties out of the way, let me ask the most obvious question: what the fuck is wrong with you!? Seriously, do you not give a shit about your legacy, if not for yourself, at least for your kids, grandkids and future generations of Trumps? If your goal is to beat James Buchanan as the worst president in history, well then Mazel Tov, as you’re halfway there and you’ve still got five weeks till inauguration day!

    Let’s start with your cabinet picks. You were supposed to drain the swamp, not restock it with self-serving corporate billionaires and other uber-rich insiders and cronies. You’ve appointed a banana-republic-worthy gaggle of unqualified, inexperienced, intellectually un-curious sexists/misogynists, racists, stabbers (ok, just one knifer, Ben Carson), fake-news-spreaders and Russian sympathizers. And your alt-right white nationalist advisor Steve Bannon sits atop this basket of deplorables. This is your idea of populism!?

    And what’s with all the generals? You know, those guys you claim to be smarter than. Are you planning some kind of military coup? Besides, hanging around with generals doesn’t make you any tougher. You could hang around real-men in uniform all you want and you’re still a draft-dodging coward.

    Now about that Russian hack. That you’re summarily dismissing the validity of the findings of 17 national security agencies is shameful and treasonous. You should be saying, “Yes, a Russian hack into our election process, a cyber-attack, is a major threat to our Democracy and must be subject to a full bi-partisan investigation.” Instead, you’ve disparaged our intelligence community. You blame President Obama. Or some 400-lb fat guy in his mother’s basement. What kind of message does it send to our enemies that our President-elect attacks our national security experts while defending Vladimir Putin?

    Next, the conflicts of interests are not just mind-numbingly unethical, but perhaps illegal and impeachable. You’ve refused to release your tax returns and have bailed on your big press conference this week to explain how you’re going to separate yourself and your family from your business... leaving the American people with zero transparency for the first time in modern presidential history. Between your foreign investments and debt, and your domestic properties (DC hotel, for example), your conflicts are staggering. You’re blatantly putting your personal financial interests before the safety and security of the nation. Oh, and because of you I now have to add the word “emoluments” to my vocabulary.

    Lastly, your utter disdain for America’s free and open press is perhaps the biggest threat to our democracy of all. Your administration’s hinted at making drastic, unprecedented changes to the media’s access to information including limiting or eliminating daily White House briefings, the Saturday morning presidential address, press conferences and the press pool. You’ve also threatened to expand our libel laws which would allow you greater ability to sue reporters and media outlets who are critical of you and your administration.

    This is what fascism smells like.

    Your words and actions are a constant attack on our freedoms and the progress we’ve made in our 240-year history. You are pissing all over the Oval Office and the U.S. Constitution. Shame on you. And shame on everyone who voted for you.

    So no, Mr. Trump, I will never refer to you as “president.” You are not worthy of that title."
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @timmer, my condolences on the decision that was taken regarding Gentlemen's Clubs in Ontario. If it's any consolation, I 'firmly' believe you were on the right side of the g-string discussion. My understanding is that Montreal is far more 'liberal' (I use this term cautiously) when it comes to the amount of presentation that is allowed. I'm hoping to visit soon and confirm such rumours.

    Thanks for the photos of the President Elect with all the Miss Universe contestants, Hooters girls & WWE wrestlers. I'm sorry for not being more regular with the eye candy and am happy that we're back on track now. Miss Universe (the one sitting next to the President Elect) is truly a winner imho. If anything, these recent photos should once and for all put to bed any insinuations that Mr. Trump is a misogynist. Just like M in GE, those who've leveled such false assertions are misguided. It's clear to me at least that he truly loves the fairer sex, just like Mr. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy before him.
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    So now we can add 'lover of authoritarianism' to illogical, naive, foolish, money-grubbing and 'Kool-Aid drinker/Fantasy Island client'.
    Well, yeah basically.
    If you don't see Trump as the biggest threat to our country (and the world) then one, many or all must apply.
    bj, you seem well educated, but sometime we get over-educated.
    Too much in our heads to properly and logically process.
    There exists in the midst of complexity a level of simplicity. It's Ying & Yang, bro.

    Trump is GW stupid combined with Nixon lawlessness, and that could equal another Hitler.
    I can assure you that my brain processor is not overly stressed yet, although I must admit that some of the far reaching conclusions already comparing the President Elect to Adolf, Joseph and other despots before he's even taken the oath of office do seem a little premature and confusing to this viewer at least.
    WGApJxT.jpg
    TripAces wrote: »
    1. What difference does it make if our own weapons ended up illing Stevens? I'm being part cynical here. The U.S. loves to make guns and loves to sell them, too. So we can't go acting "shocked" when we are attacked by our own weapons. In fact, if you want to take this a step further, could an argument not be made that the Libyans who klilled Stevens were a secret operation run by the CIA to intentionally hurt Obama (and HRC in the process) just prior to the 2012 election? After all, once we start spinning conspiracy theories, anything goes.
    Yes, of course you could make a theoretical argument that the Libyans who killed Ambassador Stevens were a secret operation run by the CIA to hurt Mr. Obama and also Mrs. Clinton, but I'd need to see more reasoning and evidence before I'd agree with that argument however.

    The bottom line is it is a fact that the CIA was selling weapons to the rebels and that those weapons got into terrorist hands. That is not speculation or a theory. The CIA is on record admitting to the $500m weapons program, and stopped it soon after Russia got involved (I'd surmise it's because they knew the rebel's cause was now futile due to the coincidental timing of the program's halt, but that would be an assumption on my part).

    The point I was trying to make is that this is not covered extensively in the media, and it should be, so that the public has the full picture.
    TripAces wrote: »
    2. The CIA doesn't have an agenda here. Sometimes the truth is the truth. Russia hacked the DNC and likely did so to hurt HRC's chances. I'll go with that as a fact. When Trump supporters start turning this around as "whining" and "trying to make Trump illegitimate," they are missing the point. The CIA never made a case that the hacjs cost HRC the election. And Obama never made that case, either. The issue here is that Russia (under the direction of Putin) attempted to undermine our democracy, and the President elect not only fails to criticize Putin on this, but he continues to reach out to him and try to be buddy-buddy. That constitutes a serious issue...and confirms to me that the far-right has lost its collective mind: Russia hacking us is just fine if it helps us defeat the Democrats. Putin > Clinton. Putin > Obama. Sorry, but this is NOT the party of Reagan anymore.
    As I said before, The Russians hack, the Chinese hack and the US hack. They all hack, and they all know the other side is hacking. In fact, the Snowden revelations from a few years back show the extent of the US snooping (both overseas and domestically). The leaks from the CIA to the NYT & WP certainly indicate that some within the CIA have a political agenda at the very least, coming as they did before the electors meet on the 19th. Whether that extends to upper management remains to be seen.

    As I said earlier, I look forward to the conclusions of the investigation, but would not be surprised at all if both Russia & China had access to confidential information. Let's not forget that Hillary was running a private server without sufficient controls in place. I also look forward to the President Elect's comments after the investigation is complete and the results officially released.

    I've already explained what Mr. Trump is hoping to achieve with a possible Russia rapprochement & won't repeat it here. Basically, there are 'bigger fish to fry'. It's really not all that different from what the Obama Administration tried to do in 2009 with its failed Russia 'reset' (which I'll remind you occurred after Russia's transgression in Georgia, and not before).
    szmqlHZ.jpg
    I hope that the incoming Trump Administration is more successful with its approach. Mr. Rex Tillerson perhaps will be less ham-fisted than Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State, and succeed with a reset. I personally agree with Bond & Gogol that Russian 'detente' is a worthy objective in geopolitics, and can facilitate cooperation on more pressing issues. The alternative is more conflict and mistrust, which is hardly conducive to world peace.
    TripAces wrote: »
    3. The actors can do as they wish. The first amendment allows it. (For now.)
    Indeed. I agree, they can waste their time and money any way they wish.
This discussion has been closed.