i love a good discussion/debate.Originally Posted by buriramboy
bsnub would rather just chat with those who agree with him?
got a red from him. ;-)
i love a good discussion/debate.Originally Posted by buriramboy
bsnub would rather just chat with those who agree with him?
got a red from him. ;-)
Originally Posted by Slick
errrr....what's your problem with the criteria?
that they polled adults?
that they polled in all 50 states?
that they asked the questions in spanish for respondents whose first language is spanish?
How do you think the intelligence community feels about sharing info with Trump...the guy would probably tweet about it ....Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
Cant chat with bsnub. Dudes a psycho.Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
worse, he might get urine all over it.Originally Posted by CSFFan
Country of over 300,000,000 people.Originally Posted by raycarey
Polls 1,032 adults.
Declares Trump 'Historically Unpopular'
And you lap it up.
they serve at the pleasure of the president.Originally Posted by CSFFan
but, yes, see your point and trump's probably censoring himself
which is why he was saying "WTF, the media gets the same intel as obama and me?"
At least it wouldn't be his own, he probably get one of the ladies in the office to do it for him, that's the way presidents roll!Originally Posted by raycarey
No, they don't. The people that actually do the work are career government employees that report to trump's mouthpiece.Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
Trump is great !!!
Loved that press conf, completely owned the fucking lot of them
quite possible, probably a Pentagon plan to 911 himOriginally Posted by raycarey
Pathetic windup effort....Originally Posted by Dragonfly
you don't know how polling works, do you?Originally Posted by Slick
and by the way, the article references 3 polls.
but hey, you're a die hard disciple of the orange jesus, so i don't expect you to stray from the rest of the flock.
oh....and please enlighten us as to why you felt compelled to highlight the part about spanish speakers.
if i were to bet, i'd say he walks away after the midterms....full of the usual bluster, but still walks away.Originally Posted by Dragonfly
and let's not rule out the very real potential of a heart attack....he's 70 something years old and obese.
like him or not, pat buchanan is still sharp as ever, approaching 80 years old.
he sums up what's going on very well:
---------------
"Fake news!" roared Donald Trump, the work of "sick people."
The president-elect was referring to a 35-page dossier of lurid details of his alleged sexual misconduct in Russia, worked up by a former British spy. A two-page summary of the 35 pages had been added to Trump’s briefing by the CIA and FBI – and then leaked to CNN.
This is "something that Nazi Germany would have done," Trump said. Here, basically, is the story.
During the primaries, anti-Trump Republicans hired the ex-spy to do "oppo research" on Trump, i.e., to dig up dirt.
The spy contacted the Russians. They told him that Trump, at a Moscow hotel in 2013, had been engaged in depraved behavior, that they had the films to blackmail him, and that Trump’s aides had been colluding with them.
When Trump won the nomination, Democrats got the dossier and began shopping it around to the mainstream media. Some sought to substantiate the allegations. None could. So none of them published the charges.
In December, a British diplomat gave the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who personally turned it over to James Comey of the FBI.
On Jan. 7, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and his colleagues at the NSA, CIA and FBI decided the new president needed to know about the dossier. They provided him with a two-page synopsis.
Once CNN learned Trump had been briefed, the cable news network reported on the unpublished dossier, without going into the lurid details.
BuzzFeed released all 35 pages. The story exploded.
Besides Trump’s understandable outrage, his Jan. 11 press conference produced related news.
U.S. intelligence agencies had for months contended that it was Russia who hacked the DNC emails and those of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta. Putin’s objectives, they contend, were to damage both U.S. democracy and Hillary Clinton, whom Putin detests, and to aid Trump.
Trump had previously dismissed claims of Russian hacking as unproved conjecture, and also as being advanced to delegitimize his victory.
Wednesday, Trump conceded Russia did it: "As far as hacking, I think it was Russia," adding, Vladimir Putin "should not be doing it."
The stakes in all of this are becoming huge.
Clearly, Trump hopes to work out with Putin the kind of detente that President Nixon achieved with Leonid Brezhnev.
This should not be impossible. For, unlike the 1970s, there is no Soviet Empire stretching from Havana to Hanoi, no Warsaw Pact dominating Central Europe, no Communist ideology steering Moscow into constant Cold War conflict with the West.
Russia is a great power with great power interests. But she does not seek to restore a global empire or remake the world in her image. U.S.-Russian relations are thus ripe for change.
But any such hope is now suddenly impaired.
The howls of indignation from Democrats and the media – that Trump’s victory and Clinton’s defeat were due to Putin’s involvement in our election – have begun to limit Trump’s freedom of action in dealing with Russia. And they are beginning to strengthen the hand of the Russophobes and the Putin-is-Hitler crowd in both parties.
When Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson went before the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Marco Rubio demanded to know why he would not publicly declare Putin a "war criminal."
The more toxic Putin-haters can make the Russian president, the more difficult for President Trump to deal with him, even if that is in the vital national interest of the United States.
The sort of investigation for which McCain has been clamoring, and the Beltway drums have now begun to beat, could make it almost impossible for President Trump to work with President Putin.
The Washington Post describes the engine it wishes to see built:
"The investigators of Russian meddling, whether a Congressional select committee or an independent commission, should have bipartisan balance, full subpoena authority, no time limit and a commitment to make public as much as possible of what they find."
What the Post seeks is a Watergate Committee like the one that investigated the Nixon White House, or a commission like the ones that investigated 9/11 and the JFK assassination.
Trump "should recognize," writes the Post, "that the credibility of his denials of any Russian connections is undermined by his refusal to release tax returns and business records."
In short, when the investigation begins, Trump must produce the evidence to establish his innocence. Else, he is Putin’s man.
This city is salivating over another Watergate, another broken president. But President-elect Trump should be aware of what is at stake. As The Wall Street Journal writes:
"Mr. Trump’s vehement denials (of collusion with Moscow and corrupt behavior) also mean that if we learn in the future that Russia does have compromising details about him, his Presidency could be over."
Yes, indeed, very big stakes.
Trump's Enemies See an Opening | Patrick J. Buchanan - Official Website
basically, buchanan is saying that mccain will push for a congressional investigation into putin's "hacking of the election" and then the focus will turn to trump and his ties with russia (blackmail with hookers, etc.), like a watergate committee.
Not only his presidency but his business as well. After all, most of his businesses are licensing his "brand"Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
anyways, csffan, don't you agree it's a good thing that trump has brought strong capable characters into his cabinet who aren't "yes men".
like lincoln's cabinet of rivals, having a healthy debate before a decision is made can only be a good thing.
Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
It's a good thing they have their own opinions...it's not a good thing when those opinions differ so wildly from their boss' stated positions. It should be a team, not a group of individuals going in their own directions.Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
And at this point in the confirmation hearings, the nominees are going through an interview process outlining how they feel the government should handle things. Apparently trump has gotten a bunch of guys who have views dramatically different from his which leads to a lot of uncertainty and uncertainty isn't good in world relations.
well, as has been written in biographies most admins have cabinets with opposing views on issues and then the president decides and everybody gets on board.Originally Posted by CSFFan
like hillary really pushed for the military involvement in libya while others (in the cabinet) opposed it and then obama decided on military action.
I don't remember any cabinet in history having such diametrically opposing viewpoints to their boss during their confirmation hearings. Shouldn't trump's team be on the same page?Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
well, if you want a good debate in your cabinet meetings, having those with differing views will be useful to make the case well for that point of view.
have a look at doris kearns goodwin's book "team of rivals" about lincoln.
And spanish speakers that cant speak english. I imagine that latinos that cant speak english would not be a huge fan of Trump.Originally Posted by buriramboy
I would think a good team has differing opinions behind closed doors but present a united front to the public.Originally Posted by Farangrakthai
yep, that's usual.Originally Posted by CSFFan
though, as you've probably read, "unpredictability" in foreign affairs is trump's strategy (to keep adversaries like russia and china guessing).
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)