The Trump Presidency

[nobodythank you]

I won't dispute that at all, but I personally take issue with the general defense of "so-and-so did it therefore 'my' guy's actions are acceptable." I think every single adult on the planet has to take responsibility for their own actions instead of passing the buck to choices made by someone else.

Totally agree. It wasn't meant as a defense. However, it is a valid point to bring up when one failing is pointed out, that is typically overlooked when the same failing is found closer to home.

 

[AWP]

Totally agree. It wasn't meant as a defense. However, it is a valid point to bring up when one failing is pointed out, that is typically overlooked when the same failing is found closer to home.

Agree. Bringing it up to show the moral corruption of another entity is fine, but too many people try to accept one man's decision based upon the actions of one or more of his predecessors. Examples are one thing, excuses are another.

 

[Etype]

I thought Woolsey was a terrible CIA director and member of the administration. He, the FBI director (Louis Freeh I think) and the SECDEF under Clinton I think served the administration poorly - and were the source of major conflicts between them and the administration.

I think it's a natural tendency - and one I fall victim to - but a bad one to define people by their opposition. So, Woolsey has a good reputation amongst Republicans for being a thorn in President Clinton's side during his tenure (and concomitantly earns a poor reputation amongst Democrats). Then, fast forward to the Trump campaign and Woolsey is a clear example to pro-Trump folks that Trump can 'reach across the isle' and has ideals that appeal to national security experts - and on the other side to those that oppose Trump Woolsey is again showing himself to be significantly under-qualified for the positions he's ascending. Now that Woolsey found himself out of the decision circle (by his interpretation) he's shitting on the (pending) administration he's serving - the exact same thing he did in the Clinton administration - and the positions are flipped again with pro-Trump folks saying he's a dirtbag and anti-Trump saying how could you sideline such a great man.

I think it highlights the difficulty in our discussions of this stuff - something I just ran into in my postings yesterday. When the start positions are based on where you support/trust and interpretation of facts (or even what are facts themselves) comes after that it makes for some dizzying reverses in logic. The media is dishonest and lying when they report things I don't think are true - but any conspiracy or ill-founded trope in a news article that paints folks I don't like in a bad light should immediately be adopted as incontrovertible fact.

I don't mean to take the position of total factual relativism - everyone is bad, everything is false, all opinions are equal - but I do think the dynamic of the 24 hour news cycle really lends itself to this type of thing. I find myself caught in it as well. I had exactly the same reaction as @TLDR20 to the news on Woolsey - looks like somebody is getting wise to the Trump administration's emerging dysfunction. But, then I started thinking about what I knew about Woolsey and thought - 'that dude is out for himself, that's been his MO for his entire career, and he was wrong on a ton of issues during his professional career.'

I think ultimately we're going to have to wait and see on most of these things. I think the signs are a mix of incompetence, wishful thinking, and un-paralleled success. The thing is, if I'm honest with myself, because I oppose most of the policies of the incoming administration it's probably the 3rd one that gives me the most concern.

@ke4gde -sorry, I think the cross-thread quote was making the post wonky.

IMO people aren't as concerned with the information contained in the hacked/leaked material because that's not the issue. If EVERY email contained in the leaks (or none of them) contained hard, indisputable evidence of illegal activity it means nothing. The issue is Russia 100% committed international cyberterrorism in order to influence our election for their benefit and it worked. Putin directed it. Russia wanted PE Trump to win, and he did, and they were happy about it. That's fact. Not conjecture, not guessing, no % of probability. PE Trump was 100% wrong on this one. Mike Pence said he felt Russia was involved because the obvious evidence pointed that way in October!!! And the best we get is, "Yea, I guess that did happen (even though I have been saying outright that it didn't happen) but it didn't actually affect the election because they didn't hack the voting machines." True to form, he didn't wait for all the info to come out before tweeting out some ridiculous shit, even going as far as to say "I have inside information you don't have; trust me. You guys will find out like, Tuesday or Wednesday."

Side note- when people pull that shit here on the site they get called on it. "I know these things you don't but I cant't tell you but you have to believe me because trust me I have double secret top shelf clearance." Posers say that shit. It's the easiest way to catch someone in an obvious lie- I have a secret but I can't tell you. Anyway.

My big problem is that the answer from the right seems to be, "Lulz, Russia didn't hack us why don't we talk about what the DNC emails said, they were trying to influence the election and that got exposed" (exactly how you did) and NOT saying, "Holy shit, a state actor committed international cyberterrorism against America this must not stand!". Do you not care that Russia hacked a political party in America in order to undermine our democratic/republic process?

The further issue is that PE Trump fawns over Putin like a high schooler every chance he gets and has defended him since this whole thing started. Before that, even. "Russians didn't give Assange the info!!" Tweeted PE Trump. Uh, yeah, they did, and your intel SME's have been telling you that for weeks. But because of what would appear to be a very strong bias towards Putin and Russia, he refuses to believe the facts of the matter. That has to be somewhat worrisome to you, doesn't it?

What did you mean to say about "... waiting till it's official before we lambaste him."?

World powers always have a preference in other words powers' elections.

Russia has been engineering the likes of Obama and Sanders since the late 40s.

So, Russia wanted Trump to win- did they have an impact on the election? Did they hack the actual election process? The answer to those questions, thus far, is no.

 

[amlove21]

ETA: -1 for too many just sayins

Meh, you're good on the 'just sayins', I notice myself using my own written pauses or go-to's and want to punch myself in the face just as much as anyone else, lol. Maybe more.

I want us all to get to a place where we actually hold people accountable (much like what @AWP alluded to) for what they do. I had an issue with it during the campaign and I still have an issue with it now. I will 100% concede that the current administration may have spoken too soon (when the sauce is provided), but I think we would agree that it's wrong and it shouldn't be tolerated.

I agree with the report- I would like to think that every vote that was cast is the correct and non-corrupted voice of the voter. That doesn't mean that the other claim- Russia and Putin influenced the election in PE Trump's favor- is false in any way. Both can be true simultaneously. I think we just have some confirmation bias and we cherry pick the info we would like that supports our view. On both sides.

World powers always have a preference in other words powers' elections.

Russia has been engineering the likes of Obama and Sanders since the late 40s.

So, Russia wanted Trump to win- did they have an impact on the election? Did they hack the actual election process? The answer to those questions, thus far, is no.

Again, I think I would challenge that statement. Russia wanted PE Trump to win, yes, did they hack the actual election process, no, did they have an impact on the election, yes. Having a preference in an election is not the same as being directed by your president to cause tangible effects in that election through illegal international cyber attacks. Even if you did have incontrovertible proof of America doing that in the past, it falls in the same category as the above- still wrong, still an issue, not ok cause some other guy did it.

Also, I don't understand where this misconception is arising, but I have never said they hacked any polling machines or whatever- they hacked the DNC and filtered damaging information about the DNC at critical times to influence voter trends along with the propagation of fake news stories and a myriad of other cyber attacks influencing voters and degrading our election process.

EASY BUTTON!!! :blkeye:

 

[nobodythank you]

Meh, you're good on the 'just sayins', I notice myself using my own written pauses or go-to's and want to punch myself in the face just as much as anyone else, lol. Maybe more.

LoL Yeah, but everytime I reread them I feel my IQ drop. Mine, not yours

 

[amlove21]

LoL Yeah, but everytime I reread them I feel my IQ drop. Mine, not yours

lol, fair enough. Not a big deal, just sayin'.

 

[RackMaster]

Since we're discussing influencing foreign elections...

US funds aided 2015 campaign to oust Netanyahu, Senate probe finds

 

[Etype]

Meh, you're good on the 'just sayins', I notice myself using my own written pauses or go-to's and want to punch myself in the face just as much as anyone else, lol. Maybe more.

I want us all to get to a place where we actually hold people accountable (much like what @AWP alluded to) for what they do. I had an issue with it during the campaign and I still have an issue with it now. I will 100% concede that the current administration may have spoken too soon (when the sauce is provided), but I think we would agree that it's wrong and it shouldn't be tolerated.

I agree with the report- I would like to think that every vote that was cast is the correct and non-corrupted voice of the voter. That doesn't mean that the other claim- Russia and Putin influenced the election in PE Trump's favor- is false in any way. Both can be true simultaneously. I think we just have some confirmation bias and we cherry pick the info we would like that supports our view. On both sides.


Again, I think I would challenge that statement. Russia wanted PE Trump to win, yes, did they hack the actual election process, no, did they have an impact on the election, yes. Having a preference in an election is not the same as being directed by your president to cause tangible effects in that election through illegal international cyber attacks. Even if you did have incontrovertible proof of America doing that in the past, it falls in the same category as the above- still wrong, still an issue, not ok cause some other guy did it.

Also, I don't understand where this misconception is arising, but I have never said they hacked any polling machines or whatever- they hacked the DNC and filtered damaging information about the DNC at critical times to influence voter trends along with the propagation of fake news stories and a myriad of other cyber attacks influencing voters and degrading our election process.

Influence is a long slow process, to think that it had an outcome on this election over such a short period of time is nonsense.

The leftist, politicized leaders of the IC know how it works, yet refuse to realistically relay it to the public. The mainstream media continues to both play the useful idiot and to shill for both them and Hillary.

You can make your own decision, but make it with open eyes.

 

[SpongeBob*24]

@amlove21 I love cartoons....they say more then you, @Wiener Licker or @Il Duce can say in 3 pages of smart talk......

"Can you believe this Wilson....how dare they try to save us...?"

 

[amlove21]

Influence is a long slow process, to think that it had an outcome on this election over such a short period of time is nonsense.

The leftist, politicized leaders of the IC know how it works, yet refuse to realistically relay it to the public. The mainstream media continues to both play the useful idiot and to shill for both them and Hillary.

You can make your own decision, but make it with open eyes.

This is sort of a wonky place we've gotten to.

It's ok for you to classify the claims of our highest ranking government officials and the myriad of intel sources as nonsense because that's your opinion- but as to your advice about not believing the mainstream media and making my own decisioin "with eyes wide open"... how?

Where do you get your 100% credible information? What do you value as "good" information? This election cycle and the follow on period has us in this place where no information is good, nothing is right, everything is biased. "Clinton News Network", Breitbart and the Alt-Right, "Faux News" and NPR, all telling the same story differently, touting their own product while simultaneously telling us everything else is wrong. What's even worse is that just by design, housewives on Facebook and liberal arts feminists are somehow led to believe that they are smarter, better informed, "more right" than the opposition.

And it trickles down to each of us. "Don't believe the leftist, politicized leaders of the IC, make your decision with eyes wide open." I mean, ok, but how? Read your right-ist, non-politisized non-mainstream media?

 

[Il Duce]

I don’t think you can say on virtually anything – and I don’t think that’s what the IC is saying in this case – that it’s a 100% certainty Russia hacked the DNC and RNC, then released selected emails as a part of a coordinated campaign to help Mr. Trump win the election. But, I think they’ve laid out a strong case in the classified and unclassified arenas that’s what happened. If someone chooses to be skeptical of the government in this case – or in general – I don’t agree but I think that’s a reasonable position. There are plenty of experts who don’t believe North Korea was behind the Sony hack – though again I think the case is very strong. Further, most of the public domain information coming out on this sort of thing is through leaks – always something that must be taken with a grain of salt as no-one leaks (or in my view commits the crime of stealing classified information) without a prior agenda.

I take issue with the massive skepticism or disbelief in this case from a community that by-and-large doesn’t show the same level of skepticism on almost anything else. Mr. Trump makes almost continuous spurious claims directly via his twitter feed – millions of people voted illegally in the election, he actually won the popular vote, global warming is a Chinese hoax, vaccines cause autism, President Obama was born in Kenya, and on and on – but those are waived away. The copious spurious and false stories leaked or fabricated about HRC during the election cycle that were treated as fact - again by the same group.

I’m not trying to re-litigate the election – an election PE Trump won – and I don’t expect any Trump supporter to be more or as/skeptical of Trump as they are of HRC – nor the other way. But, I definitely expected those who have previously been concerned with national security, respect for national security institutions, foreign interference, and the intelligence community to react with alarm to PE Trump’s reaction to this stuff. To me there is an almost direct parallel when decrying the risks to national security from HRC’s server – then shrugging Russian interference off, decrying HRC’s contempt for the military but finding nothing wrong with PE Trump’s dismissal and malignment of the IC (which is approximately 40% military).

I don’t think Russian interference changed the outcome of the election – as close and as complicated as it was. The DNC emails were embarrassing showing unflattering backroom dealing, pettiness, and the types of political calculation at the heart of American disdain for politicians. But, there was nothing criminal or with any real staying power in the news cycle. They may have further alienated disaffected Sanders voters or unenthusiastic Democrats who failed to turn out in the election – but there were a host of other events during the election cycle that had a similar effect. The actions of the FBI and the leaks from the ongoing server drama from the state department were much more damaging in the aggregate and with some key timing. But even then, in an election this close and this complex it would be impossible to say those actions ‘decided’ the election any more than you could say if tapes of Mr. Trump weren’t released showing him talking about grabbing pussy and the like he would have won the popular vote.

Bias and opinion are going to factor into any assessment by a human – but having a standard that’s essentially ‘it's true, unless it's about my side’ as a paradigm fills me with dread. It does so because I think it means it’s almost impossible to have discussions and will continuously make it difficult to have empathy for the other side’s positions. On that same note I think it’s atrocious something like 50% of democrats polled think Russia hacked polling booths and changed the outcome. That has no basis in fact and should be decried by anyone (like me) pissed about the 70% of Republicans (in the same poll) that think Mr. Trump won the popular vote because of massive voter fraud the other way. Still, if this election has taught me anything it’s to distrust polls so who knows if those numbers on opinions are in any way legit.

I saw an onion headline the other day that said 'man carefully evaluates the veracity of facebook article by weighing it against preconceived notions.' I thought it was pretty apt but no less disturbing.

 

[amlove21]

...I don’t think you can say on virtually anything – and I don’t think that’s what the IC is saying in this case – that it’s a 100% certainty Russia hacked the DNC and RNC, then released selected emails as a part of a coordinated campaign to help Mr. Trump win the election. But, I think they’ve laid out a strong case in the classified and unclassified arenas that’s what happened. ...

This is exactly what I meant- in my use of hyperbole I used 100%, what I should have said is that I thought it was a certainty and not only logical to believe that to be the truth but that dissenting views were at a severe disadvantage.

 

[ThunderHorse]

So basically all of this crap about Russia doing anything is steam. If the FBI (CIA et. al) was not allowed to examine the equipment, then it didn't happen.

Why do I say that...because all of this is bullshit.

Hillary Clinton is more of a friend to Putin than you could ever think Trump has been, it's all over the NYT in August 2015. Ash Carter, Kerry...what we're seeing right now is the worst Battalion Change of Command to ever take place, and the day after the new CO is in for Table XII.

What a shit show.

Why didn't Obama expel the Chinese diplomatic delegation when we caught them?

 

[Etype]

... did they have an impact on the election, yes.

I'm assuming that you are assuming that the was Russians who hacked the emails, and that is how they interfered with the process.

The evidence is supposedly Russian keyboard fingerprints. So someone who speaks Russian may have hacked the accounts. still a big assumption that it was the Russian gov't.

--------------------------

Now let's play a little game.
Suppose someone you know uses steroids, or likes to best their wife.

That person is up for a highly contested position, and irrefutable evidence of his misconduct is brought up, but in a less than proper manner.

Now, are you going to tell everyone in your unit to disregard the misconduct because the evidence was obtained illegally? Or are you going to go forward knowing this person is a liability?

Hillary had skeletons in the closet, she didn't do a good job protecting or hiding them. Thank God they came out now and weren't held for her future extortion.

--------------------------

Second point on security-
A former SECSTATE who doesn't understand her IA training is an untrainable liability.

As a successful businessman, I would assume that Trump uses a VPN and a paid, secure, email server.

Podesta's hacked account was a Gmail account. It's laughable that a national political campaign would conduct business using Gmail. Was he using Starbucks WiFi on his iPhone, too?

If you use Gmail for anything other than coordinating beers and BBQ, you deserve to be hacked.

I'm glad the Hillary amateur hack squad is not going to be running the country.

 

[TLDR20]

So basically all of this crap about Russia doing anything is steam. If the FBI (CIA et. al) was not allowed to examine the equipment, then it didn't happen.

Why do I say that...because all of this is bullshit.

Hillary Clinton is more of a friend to Putin than you could ever think Trump has been, it's all over the NYT in August 2015. Ash Carter, Kerry...what we're seeing right now is the worst Battalion Change of Command to ever take place, and the day after the new CO is in for Table XII.

What a shit show.

Why didn't Obama expel the Chinese diplomatic delegation when we caught them?

This thread is about PE elect Trump and the first 100 days. You weren't here, but after President Obama won, everyone here had a great time saying" can't blame anything on bush..."

I am going to make that same challenge. Defend Trump, without attacking President Obama and Hillary. For some issues it is impossible to leave out the current POTUS, but it should be pretty fucking easy to leave Hillary out as she hasn't even been in a public office since 2012.

 

[Etype]

Why didn't Obama expel the Chinese diplomatic delegation when we caught them?

So we expel their "diplomats" then they expel ours? Then we're left with a zero-sum spy game.

The only reason it happened in this case with Russia is to bolster the narrative that Hillary ONLY lost because of some sneaky Russian guys, and that we are VERY upset about it.

 

[ThunderHorse]

This thread is about PE elect Trump and the first 100 days. You weren't here, but after President Obama won, everyone here had a great time saying" can't blame anything on bush..."

I am going to make that same challenge. Defend Trump, without attacking President Obama and Hillary. For some issues it is impossible to leave out the current POTUS, but it should be pretty fucking easy to leave Hillary out as she hasn't even been in a public office since 2012.

Then I think we should have kept the Election thread open, as every action this idiotic administration takes is a consequence of their party's loss.

So the Intelligence brief has been published, 23 pages, reading it now: The intelligence community report on Russian activities in the 2016 election

 

[TLDR20]

Then I think we should have kept the Election thread open, as every action this idiotic administration takes is a consequence of their party's loss.

So the Intelligence brief has been published, 23 pages, reading it now: The intelligence community report on Russian activities in the 2016 election

This administration? This thread is about Trump and his first 100 days.

Post election, bringing up the current administrations actions from long ago doesn't do any good here.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

Back on topic -

While I still maintain my "anyone but Hillary" stance, Trump was obviously not my first choice. The President-Elect getting into a Twitter war with Arnold Schwartzenrger about TV ratings is embarrassing, the President-Elect publicly questioning our intelligence community is frightening .

Somewhere in the prior election thread I made a post stating that Trump would be a unifier. Specifically that if he turned out to be an immediate train wreck you would see the Dems and Republicans unify in near unanimous agreement and impeach him out of office before he has the opportunity to cause any real damage.

I am beginning to see that as a realistic outcome more everyday.




Edited to add comment about intel in 1st paragraph.

 

[Etype]

Dems and Republicans unify in near unanimous agreement and impeach him out of office before he has the opportunity to cause any real damage.

So the status quo political system can return us to the path of becoming an unsalvageable welfare state?

Let's hope that doesn't happen.

Why are you freightened that he would question the IC? If Pres Bush would've done so, thousands of dead Americans might be alive today, and ISIS might not even exist.