US Elections 2016

[Unknown user]

 

you have literally no idea what it means do you?

[Bridge of Djoum]

Great revisionism yank! 

This post outlines beautifully the fact UA has utterly owned you. Give up, you're well beaten here.

[Seymour M Hersh]

This post outlines beautifully the fact UA has utterly owned you. Give up, you're well beaten here.

 

Well if you say so. But as I was living and working in the States at the time I remember the energy, positivity and pride RR restored to Americans after the disastrous Carter years so I'll continue to accuse him of revising after the fact.

[Notts1874]

I have never mentioned any of that either, or Pizzagate, as much as you and others on here that know nothing would like everyone to believe. Now, tell us what you gleaned from the WikiLeaks?

You clearly alluded to Pizzagate and I have previously quoted exactly where you did. Just because you deny it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

You are not only a gullible idiot but also a shameless liar.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

You clearly alluded to Pizzagate and I have previously quoted exactly where you did. Just because you deny it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

You are not only a gullible idiot but also a shameless liar.

Stop giving him attention.

[jake]

Just picking one here, the Obama Administration blocked the Dakota Access Pipeline which the Standing Rock protests were trying to stop.

 

Trump's nominee for Secretary of Energy, which oversees the pipeline, is on the board of directors of the parent company of Dakota Access. Trump has promised to find a way to reverse the decision.

 

This is typical of the rest of these accusations. Up is down, left is right, Obama is pro-oil, Trump will protect minorities. The Clinton Foundation which gave AIDS drugs to people in Africa was corrupt and had conflicts of interest but Trump's real estate empire built on heavily leveraged debt held by Deutschebank isn't anything to worry about.

 

It's not worth wasting time "fact checking" at this point because nobody supporting Trump is even paying attention to reality anymore. It's all performance and bluster.

 

Thats not my understanding of whats been going on at standing rock UA.

 

Im no trump supporter .

 

My question is what to believe.

You obviously are a clinton supporter and it colours what you believe.

Going by your next post you are happy to believe that the clinton foundation did not expose a secratary of state to a conflict of interest.

There is no doubt it did some good.

Donations from some of the contributors make donald trump look like a saint though UA.

[Unknown user]

Well if you say so. But as I was living and working in the States at the time I remember the energy, positivity and pride RR restored to Americans after the disastrous Carter years so I'll continue to accuse him of revising after the fact.

And we're meant to get all that from "Great revisionism yank!"

[Ulysses]

Well i have not posted anything about that kind of stuff.

 

That wasnt what i was getting at.

I was though asking who do or what to believe in regards to more serious matters.

 

You do realise thats what i was questioning surely?

 

 

Why do you think anyone can glean what you're questioning?  You quote sources who are unreliable and selective - and that's being charitable.  You choose to believe them, or not believe them, based on nothing more than your personal view of the entertainment value of whatever nonsense they post.  And what do you mean "more serious matters".  These numbnuts said that Michelle Obama is a murderous tranny, FFS.  If they can't be trusted with basic biographical details then they can't be trusted with anything. 

 

 

Or maybe you think Michelle Obama actually IS a homicidal tranny? 

[Ulysses]

You clearly alluded to Pizzagate and I have previously quoted exactly where you did. Just because you deny it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

You are not only a gullible idiot but also a shameless liar.

 

Don't you mean a shameless lyer? 

[jake]

Why do you think anyone can glean what you're questioning? You quote sources who are unreliable and selective - and that's being charitable. You choose to believe them, or not believe them, based on nothing more than your personal view of the entertainment value of whatever nonsense they post. And what do you mean "more serious matters". These numbnuts said that Michelle Obama is a murderous tranny, FFS. If they can't be trusted with basic biographical details then they can't be trusted with anything.

 

 

Or maybe you think Michelle Obama actually IS a homicidal tranny?

 

Think you maybe confusing me with someone else.

What sources?

Thats twice you have linked me with something i have not mentioned once.

 

More serious matters being Syria.

The alleged hacking by russia .

The clintons being held up by you and others as some kind of saints.

 

I have asked who or what to believe and you rant at me about ****ing tranny murderers .

 

There is credible evidence of the cirrent US government backing isis in the syrian conflict to further its agenda of controlling oil supplies in the region.

But hey you knock yourself out by reducing this to false shit about what i have never said about trannys FFS.

[Ulysses]

Think you maybe confusing me with someone else.

What sources?

Thats twice you have linked me with something i have not mentioned once.

 

More serious matters being Syria.

The alleged hacking by russia .

The clintons being held up by you and others as some kind of saints.

 

I have asked who or what to believe and you rant at me about ******* tranny murderers .

 

There is credible evidence of the cirrent US government backing isis in the syrian conflict to further its agenda of controlling oil supplies in the region.

But hey you knock yourself out by reducing this to false shit about what i have never said about trannys FFS.

 

Another rambling post doing more violence to the truth (minor sin) and the English language (****ing biggie, that one).

 

I don't regard any political figure "as some kind of saints", which means you're the one confusing people with other people.  I have occasionally had a regard for some politicians, but I've generally been disappointed when I have.  So what?  That's life, and whatever I am I'm no idealist.

 

The people who peddle the shite the tinfoil hatters are trying to pass on to the rest of us have a track record of making stuff up.  You know they're making up the stuff you don't like.  How do you know they're not making up the stuff you do like?

[jake]

Another rambling post doing more violence to the truth (minor sin) and the English language (****ing biggie, that one).

 

I don't regard any political figure "as some kind of saints", which means you're the one confusing people with other people. I have occasionally had a regard for some politicians, but I've generally been disappointed when I have. So what? That's life, and whatever I am I'm no idealist.

 

The people who peddle the shite the tinfoil hatters are trying to pass on to the rest of us have a track record of making stuff up. You know they're making up the stuff you don't like. How do you know they're not making up the stuff you do like?

 

Think you will find that your last paragraph was the question i asked in the first place.

But i asked it of all media sources.

 

The rest of your post says i do violence to the truth.

Tell me the truth oh wise one.

 

As for the english language one i can only apologise.

It seems ok to me at the time of typing.

 

Mind your own posts for mistakes though.

[Ulysses]

Mind your own posts for mistakes though.

 

 

I always do.

 

I've already explained how you were untruthful - just read my post again.

 

Critical analysis isn't about keeping the "facts" you like and dropping the "facts" you don't.  In fact, as I've had to accept painfully on many occasions it's exactly the opposite.  Like I said, the "truthers" of one kind or another out there have a record of telling lies.  That makes them liars.  The fact that they're not considered mainstream media outlets doesn't make their lies any better than anyone else's lies.

 

Oddly enough, the only reason this subject is getting discussed is because a couple of tinfoil hatters made this thread about their particular brand of lunacy - just like they do with every discussion they get involved in.  But in fact it has very little to do with the Presidential election.  Fake news and tinfoil hattery has been credited by some (or blamed by others) for Trump's win.  The reality is that the headbangers didn't make the difference; in a poor race between poor candidates, the crap candidate for change got the edge over the crap candidate for non-change.  I had no idea what Hillary Clinton's economic platform was, and I suspect most American voters didn't either.  In a sense all she stood for was "not Trump".  That won her the popular vote in Democrat strongholds, but it was too hollow a message to deliver wins in the states that mattered. 

 

But in the end, whether we believe NBC News or http://forgedbirthcerttrannymissus.com is neither here nor there.  Donald Trump will be inaugurated President in two weeks from now.  While he has no discernible political convictions he is establishing an Administration that will be to the right of the right.  Will he "make America great again"?  I doubt that.  This is the beginning of China's century, and Russia is regaining much of the status it lost in world affairs after the collapse of the USSR.  But there's every chance that he will preside over the screwing of ordinary and middle-class Americans on an unprecedented scale.  If that happens, so be it.  That's democracy; to paraphrase Douglas Adams "you get the lizards you vote for". 

[jake]

I always do.

 

I've already explained how you were untruthful - just read my post again.

 

Critical analysis isn't about keeping the "facts" you like and dropping the "facts" you don't. In fact, as I've had to accept painfully on many occasions it's exactly the opposite. Like I said, the "truthers" of one kind or another out there have a record of telling lies. That makes them liars. The fact that they're not considered mainstream media outlets doesn't make their lies any better than anyone else's lies.

 

Oddly enough, the only reason this subject is getting discussed is because a couple of tinfoil hatters made this thread about their particular brand of lunacy - just like they do with every discussion they get involved in. But in fact it has very little to do with the Presidential election. Fake news and tinfoil hattery has been credited by some (or blamed by others) for Trump's win. The reality is that the headbangers didn't make the difference; in a poor race between poor candidates, the crap candidate for change got the edge over the crap candidate for non-change. I had no idea what Hillary Clinton's economic platform was, and I suspect most American voters didn't either. In a sense all she stood for was "not Trump". That won her the popular vote in Democrat strongholds, but it was too hollow a message to deliver wins in the states that mattered.

 

But in the end, whether we believe NBC News or http://forgedbirthcerttrannymissus.com is neither here nor there. Donald Trump will be inaugurated President in two weeks from now. While he has no discernible political convictions he is establishing an Administration that will be to the right of the right. Will he "make America great again"? I doubt that. This is the beginning of China's century, and Russia is regaining much of the status it lost in world affairs after the collapse of the USSR. But there's every chance that he will preside over the screwing of ordinary and middle-class Americans on an unprecedented scale. If that happens, so be it. That's democracy; to paraphrase Douglas Adams "you get the lizards you vote for".

 

Good post.

 

Truth is i should set up a jake thread so i can argue with myself.

[Notts1874]

Don't you mean a shameless lyer?

Sorry I splent it wrong its obviously Lyer.......

Edited January 5, 2017 by Notts1874

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Well if you say so. But as I was living and working in the States at the time I remember the energy, positivity and pride RR restored to Americans after the disastrous Carter years so I'll continue to accuse him of revising after the fact.

 

Reagan never would have been as popular as he was had he not helped some people -- white people (like me), wealthy people (not like me), suburban real estate developers, military contractors, and others were the beneficiaries.  And yes, the economy did considerably better during his time in office for a number of reasons, including the Volker-led Federal Reserve spiking interest rates to finally shake out the damage that Johnson's disastrous war and Nixon's price floors had done.  His deficit spending also dumped trillions into the economy but ran the debt through the roof while ignoring infrastructure.

 

It's more widely understood now how much damage Reaganism and Thatcherism did to our respective nations, but no question many people loved what he was doing at the time.  Kind of like how binging at the buffet feels good at the time.

 

Thats not my understanding of whats been going on at standing rock UA.

 

Im no trump supporter .

 

My question is what to believe.

You obviously are a clinton supporter and it colours what you believe.

Going by your next post you are happy to believe that the clinton foundation did not expose a secratary of state to a conflict of interest.

There is no doubt it did some good.

Donations from some of the contributors make donald trump look like a saint though UA.

 

Not sure what your understanding of Standing Rock is.  I suppose we have another thread for that though.  Rick Perry is absolutely on the Dakota Access Pipeline board, and he is Trump's nominee for Secretary of Energy.  Whatever Obama did or didn't do on DAPL, Trump will be worse for the movement there.

 

It's frustrating that me thinking "Clinton would have made a better President than Trump" somehow gets turned into "Hilary Clinton is my fave politician ever." My politics are considerably to the left of Clinton's (and actually to the left of Sanders too), but I also firmly believe that for an election as wide-ranging and complex as the Presidency, you have to make compromises on coalition building, particularly because the US electoral systems inherently leads to a two-party system.  I strongly supported Obama in 2008 over Clinton and was reluctant to giver her my support in 2016, but a very weak field of primary opponents left her as the best option.

 

Your last sentence is what makes me want to pull my hair out.

 

I've read all the allegations about the Clinton Foundation, and it's piddly stuff.  Blown out of proportion by highly partisan media outlets in order to bring her down.  It is absolutely nothing compared to the complex mess of personally entangling ties that Trump brings to the White House, enough that at this point it looks as if unless he makes some radical changes, Trump may commit impeachable offenses simply by taking office with his current set-up.  Trump quite literally has turned his business concerns over to his kids and then insisted that those exact same kids get to sit in on confidential transition briefings.  It's so blatantly out of line that it boggles the mind.  Trump Tower in Washington is literally on land leased from the Federal Government, placing him as a direct beneficiary of a federal contract which he will oversee.

 

Congress will do nothing to start with because the GOP controls both houses and they seem to think this kind of thing gives them leverage over Trump the loose cannon.  I absolutely do not expect this detente to last -- at some point, Trump is going to swing wildly away from Republican orthodoxy and McConnell and Co. are going to bite back and it's going to be chaos.  I'd put the chance of a Trump impeachment in the next four years at about 30% right now.

 

Trump's agenda will be horrific domestically, but that will be nothing to his crashing about internationally.  The reason Obama continued (IMO wrongly) to push the TTP, despite all of its flaws, is that it was designed to contain China's economic influence.  Its collapse empowers China, and that means that just at a moment that we're going to need a powerful, capable, and subtle leader, we're going to have a game show host who says and does whatever pops into his mind at the moment.  This really could be the end of American hegemony, which while not great, I think I prefer to Chinese hegemony and rampant Putinism.

[JamboX2]

A secratary of state whose foundation was given gifts in the hundreds of millions from foreign governments had major conflict of interest.

 

Yet we are to believe she is any better than trump.

 

She committed electoral fraud in her quest for nomination.

 

Theres a lot of serious stuff exposed by so called fake news.

 

The nasty stuff about obamas wife is not what i was referring to.

 

As an aside i see the editor of the new york times which has rubbished certain claims by so called fake news and ran stories with cia insider claims is also the ex director of the bbc who covered up the saville crimes.

 

Like i asked who or what do you believe ?

Fake news is designed to force people to question more reliable outlets and to sow confusion. It's been allegedly used by RT for years to assist (1) Putin to solidify his untouchable position in Russia and (2) to cause muddled reporting in conflict zones in Ukraine and in Crimea.

 

In America people are claiming papers of record like the Post and the Times are false and "establishment white flags" when they report on things they disagree with whilst buying into the fake news media which as Ulysses has said has claimed Michelle Obama is a TS and claimed Obama isn't even American. That, however, goes back decades to deregulated media and the rise of sensationalism with Fox and American right wing talk radio.

 

Google Pizza gate. Shootings caused by fake news.

[JamboX2]

Oh really? We will start with the WikiLeaks. What do you think about what is in them and what it says about those still in power?

I have not read all the leaks. But are you telling me that a man who is about to lead the worlds most influential nation in nearly all fields who is a petulant, misogynistic, right winger who wants to appoint a reactionary set of Supreme Court judges, who made calls for allowing more guns not less to be sold, who denies climate change, who undermines the UN, backs settlement building in Palestine, wants to go full out war against ISIS over national borders and called for the deaths of innocent civilians related to ISIS and who thinks the best way to solve nuclear proliferation in the middle east and east asia is to stoke the fires of fear a division over peaceful cooperation and who demonising migrants of all kinds to his nation is somehow more fit to lead than Clinton? If so you need help.

 

Trump is terrifying. At least Clinton is a hawkish Obama. But Trump, he will be the ruin of many ways of American way of life. Just think what damage his supreme court appointment can do to women's rights or the likes of Rick Perry will do to energy at a critical stage of Paris Accords implementation, what Betsy DeVos will do to education, what mad ideas Mad Dog Matis will come up with to deal with the Yemen Civil War, Syria and North Korea... it truly is frightening. But, emails...

[JamboX2]

Already got a few hundred Ford jobs relocated from Mexico to Michigan, and still two weeks until he even becomes President.

 

Meanwhile after 8 years Obama's promise to shut Guantanamo is still not fulfilled.

 

Give the guy a chance.

You can't compare like for like here.

 

Obama had to deal with Guantanamo through a hostile congress and then find a state willing to host these prisoners. No such luck. And it's still going.

 

The other is a corporate decision by a company.

 

Trump being elected hasn't changed anything yet apart from ally the left against him.

[Francis Albert]

I have not read all the leaks. But are you telling me that a man who is about to lead the worlds most influential nation in nearly all fields who is a petulant, misogynistic, right winger who wants to appoint a reactionary set of Supreme Court judges, who made calls for allowing more guns not less to be sold, who denies climate change, who undermines the UN, backs settlement building in Palestine, wants to go full out war against ISIS over national borders and called for the deaths of innocent civilians related to ISIS and who thinks the best way to solve nuclear proliferation in the middle east and east asia is to stoke the fires of fear a division over peaceful cooperation and who demonising migrants of all kinds to his nation is somehow more fit to lead than Clinton? If so you need help.

 

Trump is terrifying. At least Clinton is a hawkish Obama. But Trump, he will be the ruin of many ways of American way of life. Just think what damage his supreme court appointment can do to women's rights or the likes of Rick Perry will do to energy at a critical stage of Paris Accords implementation, what Betsy DeVos will do to education, what mad ideas Mad Dog Matis will come up with to deal with the Yemen Civil War, Syria and North Korea... it truly is frightening. But, emails...

This is just a wild guess I suppose but I predict he will do less damage to the USA and the world than the blessed JFK. Certainly on the foreign policy front, which should most concern us.

[jake]

Reagan never would have been as popular as he was had he not helped some people -- white people (like me), wealthy people (not like me), suburban real estate developers, military contractors, and others were the beneficiaries. And yes, the economy did considerably better during his time in office for a number of reasons, including the Volker-led Federal Reserve spiking interest rates to finally shake out the damage that Johnson's disastrous war and Nixon's price floors had done. His deficit spending also dumped trillions into the economy but ran the debt through the roof while ignoring infrastructure.

 

It's more widely understood now how much damage Reaganism and Thatcherism did to our respective nations, but no question many people loved what he was doing at the time. Kind of like how binging at the buffet feels good at the time.

 

 

Not sure what your understanding of Standing Rock is. I suppose we have another thread for that though. Rick Perry is absolutely on the Dakota Access Pipeline board, and he is Trump's nominee for Secretary of Energy. Whatever Obama did or didn't do on DAPL, Trump will be worse for the movement there.

 

It's frustrating that me thinking "Clinton would have made a better President than Trump" somehow gets turned into "Hilary Clinton is my fave politician ever." My politics are considerably to the left of Clinton's (and actually to the left of Sanders too), but I also firmly believe that for an election as wide-ranging and complex as the Presidency, you have to make compromises on coalition building, particularly because the US electoral systems inherently leads to a two-party system. I strongly supported Obama in 2008 over Clinton and was reluctant to giver her my support in 2016, but a very weak field of primary opponents left her as the best option.

 

Your last sentence is what makes me want to pull my hair out.

 

I've read all the allegations about the Clinton Foundation, and it's piddly stuff. Blown out of proportion by highly partisan media outlets in order to bring her down. It is absolutely nothing compared to the complex mess of personally entangling ties that Trump brings to the White House, enough that at this point it looks as if unless he makes some radical changes, Trump may commit impeachable offenses simply by taking office with his current set-up. Trump quite literally has turned his business concerns over to his kids and then insisted that those exact same kids get to sit in on confidential transition briefings. It's so blatantly out of line that it boggles the mind. Trump Tower in Washington is literally on land leased from the Federal Government, placing him as a direct beneficiary of a federal contract which he will oversee.

 

Congress will do nothing to start with because the GOP controls both houses and they seem to think this kind of thing gives them leverage over Trump the loose cannon. I absolutely do not expect this detente to last -- at some point, Trump is going to swing wildly away from Republican orthodoxy and McConnell and Co. are going to bite back and it's going to be chaos. I'd put the chance of a Trump impeachment in the next four years at about 30% right now.

 

Trump's agenda will be horrific domestically, but that will be nothing to his crashing about internationally. The reason Obama continued (IMO wrongly) to push the TTP, despite all of its flaws, is that it was designed to contain China's economic influence. Its collapse empowers China, and that means that just at a moment that we're going to need a powerful, capable, and subtle leader, we're going to have a game show host who says and does whatever pops into his mind at the moment. This really could be the end of American hegemony, which while not great, I think I prefer to Chinese hegemony and rampant Putinism.

You may prefer american hegemony but since ww2 ended millions have paid for that.

As for the piddly partisan stories of the clinton foundation.

Really if you're happy with that standard then i dont know why you can complain about trump.

 

I will answer your post more fully when less tired.

[JamboX2]

Can you please explain why brexit will harm poor communities for sometime to come.

And do you really believe a vote for the clintons whose own clinton foundation was bankrolled by some of the worst tyrants are the vanguard of the poor.

 

Did obama protect the rights of native americans in the recent fracking scenarios.

 

Is obama and the wests concerns over Syria to do with the brutality of assads regime or was it more to do with the proposed fuel lines from russia.

 

Dont kid yourself on any of them they are all a much of muchness.

No they aren't! Obama is limited as President to respect states rights. Fracking is a state issue. I don't know the specific case but perhaps he was limited in doing anything here.

 

What about Obama opposing Keystone and the positive affect on the native popultions along that route?

 

What about the type of person Trump wants to see on the supreme court? Do you think they will back the right to chose for women? How about the right to health care? What a about on superpacs? Or on lgbt rights? Healthcare provision? Do you think they'll vote to further that or not?

 

Syria is a mess because we intervened without UN mandates or an exit plan and supported multiple other uprisings (which have all mainly failed) across the middle east. Western concerns never change. But do you think Trump would have dealt with more or less restraint? Or would Assad have been dumped at sea by Navy Seals by now? Trump is talking about carpet bombing a desert and all the towns and cities in that desert with black flags because he thinks that will somehow work. It won't. History teaches us that. Dien Bien Phu in French Indo China. Vietnam and Cambodia. Iraq. Afghanistan (80s and 00s). Farc in Columbia. All bombed. All blasted to smitherens. Lost battles daily. But never lost the war. The only way to defeat these people is by assisting locals to resist them and to erode their support base.

 

One dead martyr from an American rocket is worth more to these people in the age of mass and social media than 10 soldiers in the field.

 

All Trump will do is fan the flames of anger and resentment towards the USA across the world. Sadly for us, we've alienated ourselves from our nearest neighbours and will be stuck. Our own PM contradicted our own UN Security Council vote and national policy on Israeli settlements to get his attention.

 

The whole thing is a shambolic mess sold to the people by false prophets and made easy to swallow through being given austerity, an ever declining standard of living, frozen pay and unimaginative and cowardly political leaders unable to offer a better vision through fear of defeat and fear of speaking out against what is really wrong and pandering to fears which arw unfounded.

Edited January 6, 2017 by JamboX2

[Francis Albert]

You can't compare like for like here.

 

Obama had to deal with Guantanamo through a hostile congress and then find a state willing to host these prisoners. No such luck. And it's still going.

 

The other is a corporate decision by a company.

 

Trump being elected hasn't changed anything yet apart from ally the left against him.

Isn't Guantanamo run by the US military? Isn't the President the Commander in Chief of the US military? And he can't close it? In eight years as Commander in Chief?

 

Trump seems to have influenced a corporate decision by a company he has absolutely no control over as a mere President Elect. 

 

Oh and allying the left against him is not a post -election achievement. It is the reason (along with allying a lot of central ground) that he was elected.

[jake]

Fake news is designed to force people to question more reliable outlets and to sow confusion. It's been allegedly used by RT for years to assist (1) Putin to solidify his untouchable position in Russia and (2) to cause muddled reporting in conflict zones in Ukraine and in Crimea.

 

In America people are claiming papers of record like the Post and the Times are false and "establishment white flags" when they report on things they disagree with whilst buying into the fake news media which as Ulysses has said has claimed Michelle Obama is a TS and claimed Obama isn't even American. That, however, goes back decades to deregulated media and the rise of sensationalism with Fox and American right wing talk radio.

 

Google Pizza gate. Shootings caused by fake news.

 

Fake news like weapons of mass destruction that led to more than just shootings.

 

Like ive said who or what to believe and im not talking about murdering trannys.

 

Pizza gate i have read about briefly and although it seems it has no substance what i would say is this.

 

We have had institutionalised child abuse at the very highest levels in this country.

Covered up at the highest levels.

[JamboX2]

Isn't Guantanamo run by the US military? Isn't the President the Commander in Chief of the US military? And he can't close it? In eight years as Commander in Chief?

 

Trump seems to have influenced a corporate decision by a company he has absolutely no control over as a mere President Elect.

 

Oh and allying the left against him is not a post -election achievement. It is the reason (along with allying a lot of central ground) that he was elected.

By bluster and bullying via social media? What was the grand total of job creation for Detroit? 100? In a city which is destitute by the decisions of schister businessmen like Trump in the deregulation of the US economy under Regan?

 

And it's not just a military issue. If these people are moved to US soil and are imprisoned there he needs to arrange for civilian court trials. For humane holding of prisoners. For prisons to hold them in. For federal and state funding. Those are issues he needs congressional approval for. Guantanamo was an easy fix by the previos administrations (Clinton, Bush snr Regan, Carter, Ford etc) to keep certain detainees, refugees, assylum seekers and now prisoners off American home soil for political expediency. Back then it was temporary. Now it's a permanent thing.

 

If Obama is a failure in anything it is not living up to his promise to rather be a transformational one term pesident and do the hard things then and there than being an above average two termer. The boldness of the last year should've been his approach to his entire time in office rather than peddle the war making, hawkish policies of his predecessor and act light on the failed banking culture.

 

Afterall hope, boldness, compassion and empathy characterised America's greatest President in FDR's time in office.

[JamboX2]

Fake news like weapons of mass destruction that led to more than just shootings.

 

Like ive said who or what to believe and im not talking about murdering trannys.

 

Pizza gate i have read about briefly and although it seems it has no substance what i would say is this.

 

We have had institutionalised child abuse at the very highest levels in this country.

Covered up at the highest levels.

Yes we have. But that came out in the mainstream media after years of research and investigation. And even then it has been notoriously difficult for the police to substantiate the allegations via in some cases. But those stories in the UK did not come from crackpot radio shock-jocks and their goofy followers online.

 

The credibility of the source counts for a lot. Even Fox news discredited it before the shootings.

 

If you cannot distinguish that then there's a major issue in the ability of the modern age in the ability to read, comprehend and be critical of sources of media.

[JamboX2]

This is just a wild guess I suppose but I predict he will do less damage to the USA and the world than the blessed JFK. Certainly on the foreign policy front, which should most concern us.

Trump would've started World War 3 over the missile crisis. Kennedy was showing signs of reconsidering Vietnam policy in mid to late 1963. He wrote to Bobby Kennedy he wasn't inclined to listen to his generals on increasing numbers because when he had visited French troops fighting in large numbers in Vietnam in the 1950s he recognised the futility of their fight may become a futile war for America.

 

Sadly we will never know what may have been with JFK.

 

But we will with Trump. And i fear from his rhetoric the USA is about to cause us in Europe a lot more bother with refugees by oblitering huge chunks of Syria and Iraq.

[jake]

Yes we have. But that came out in the mainstream media after years of research and investigation. And even then it has been notoriously difficult for the police to substantiate the allegations via in some cases. But those stories in the UK did not come from crackpot radio shock-jocks and their goofy followers online.

 

The credibility of the source counts for a lot. Even Fox news discredited it before the shootings.

 

If you cannot distinguish that then there's a major issue in the ability of the modern age in the ability to read, comprehend and be critical of sources of media.

 

I already did distinguish between them.

 

But dont pretend that established forms of so called trusted sources can be relied on.

 

Thats the question and point ive been making.

 

Who or what do we believe.

[jake]

Trump would've started World War 3 over the missile crisis. Kennedy was showing signs of reconsidering Vietnam policy in mid to late 1963. He wrote to Bobby Kennedy he wasn't inclined to listen to his generals on increasing numbers because when he had visited French troops fighting in large numbers in Vietnam in the 1950s he recognised the futility of their fight may become a futile war for America.

 

Sadly we will never know what may have been with JFK.

 

But we will with Trump. And i fear from his rhetoric the USA is about to cause us in Europe a lot more bother with refugees by oblitering huge chunks of Syria and Iraq.

 

Whereas the goings on around Syria and the ramping up of rhetoric against russia are not trumps doing but obamas .

[J.T.F.Robertson]

Does anyone believe Trump REALLY knows anything about anything? He's already giving the impresssion it's a part-time joab.

 

An egotistical, narcissistic moron, albeit an obscenely rich one.

 

Never mind, Ivanka will help him oot.

[JamboX2]

Whereas the goings on around Syria and the ramping up of rhetoric against russia are not trumps doing but obamas .

Considering the actions of Russia in Crimea, Donetsk, it's sabre rattling in eastern Europe, hacking of the US and Syrian air campaign that rhetoric is justifiable. If Trump engages in similar actions when in office I'd hope we give him and his administration a wide bearth.

[JamboX2]

I already did distinguish between them.

 

But dont pretend that established forms of so called trusted sources can be relied on.

 

Thats the question and point ive been making.

 

Who or what do we believe.

That comment in itself suggests you cannot distinguish between the credible and non-credible sources.

[jake]

That comment in itself suggests you cannot distinguish between the credible and non-credible sources.

 

Please list credible news sources that i should believe.

[Dawnrazor]

Please list credible news sources that i should believe.

There are none, none at all, there are only "sources" that some people agree with, if you're "source" is from the left, the centre/right dismiss it, if it's from the right, the left dismiss it, this is a circular argument that nobody is going to win!

[jake]

There are none, none at all, there are only "sources" that some people agree with, if you're "source" is from the left, the centre/right dismiss it, if it's from the right, the left dismiss it, this is a circular argument that nobody is going to win!

 

Its almost like we have too much news.

[John Gentleman]

Does anyone believe Trump REALLY knows anything about anything? He's already giving the impresssion it's a part-time joab.

 

An egotistical, narcissistic moron, albeit an obscenely rich one.

 

Never mind, Ivanka will help him oot.

 

He's a just a thug and a bully. He tried to bully the Scottish and Irish governments with his golf resorts, but that didn't get him far. Took them to court, but failed there too.

My (only) prediction for 2017 is that the military/industrial complex in the US won't allow him to implement even 5% of his agenda (whatever that is). Remember, the US is a democracy not a dictatorship. All this stuff he's ranting on about will have to pass the House of Reps and Senate. Unlike the UK or OZ, they don't vote along 'party lines' and there's a whole lot of hostility towards Trump in both houses. They'll either neuter him or he'll go stark raving bonkers. Probably both. Then they'll impeach him.

[coconut doug]

Fake news is designed to force people to question more reliable outlets and to sow confusion. It's been allegedly used by RT for years to assist (1) Putin to solidify his untouchable position in Russia and (2) to cause muddled reporting in conflict zones in Ukraine and in Crimea.

 

In America people are claiming papers of record like the Post and the Times are false and "establishment white flags" when they report on things they disagree with whilst buying into the fake news media which as Ulysses has said has claimed Michelle Obama is a TS and claimed Obama isn't even American. That, however, goes back decades to deregulated media and the rise of sensationalism with Fox and American right wing talk radio.

 

Google Pizza gate. Shootings caused by fake news.

Do you have any examples of this "fake news" from RT? Could it be that the very notion that they produce it, is in itself fake news?

 

Are you suggesting that "papers of record" as you describe them are not involved in fake news?  You are saying that those of us who question the content of these papers of record are unable to form valid opinions. If so, how do you explain this timely event in the Washington Post?  http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/01/01/fake-news-and-how-the-washington-post-rewrote-its-story-on-russian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#6a1ddf1b291e

 

Are you making an argument for stricter regulation of the media? How do you know MO isn't a TS anyway?

[coconut doug]

I have not read all the leaks. But are you telling me that a man who is about to lead the worlds most influential nation in nearly all fields who is a petulant, misogynistic, right winger who wants to appoint a reactionary set of Supreme Court judges, who made calls for allowing more guns not less to be sold, who denies climate change, who undermines the UN, backs settlement building in Palestine, wants to go full out war against ISIS over national borders and called for the deaths of innocent civilians related to ISIS and who thinks the best way to solve nuclear proliferation in the middle east and east asia is to stoke the fires of fear a division over peaceful cooperation and who demonising migrants of all kinds to his nation is somehow more fit to lead than Clinton? If so you need help.

 

Trump is terrifying. At least Clinton is a hawkish Obama. But Trump, he will be the ruin of many ways of American way of life. Just think what damage his supreme court appointment can do to women's rights or the likes of Rick Perry will do to energy at a critical stage of Paris Accords implementation, what Betsy DeVos will do to education, what mad ideas Mad Dog Matis will come up with to deal with the Yemen Civil War, Syria and North Korea... it truly is frightening. But, emails...

You should read the leaks it might give you a better perspective. On the other hand if you don't know or fail to recognise the type of person Clinton is then you will not feel too hypocritical when you criticise Trump for behaving in the same way as the Clintons.

 

Hillary used her influence in the party to give her an unfair advantage over Sanders, She used her media connections to find out the questions before her debate with Trump. Someone who is prepared to shaft their colleagues and cheat in competition is not going to be a good leader. She will not have the skills necessary to negotiate with people she cannot manipulate and cheat. This makes her very dangerous.

 

Hillary stood by her husband who has an even worse catalogue of accusation of sexual abuse than Trump. She supported a right wing candidate who voted against the civil rights act and was endorsed by the KKK when she was in the Republican Party. She will do or say anything to get what she wants and is regularly accused of supporting a hard line Neocon agenda when speaking to business whilst making more conciliatory statements in public. She's been rumbled but not by the Russians. 

[Francis Albert]

Trump would've started World War 3 over the missile crisis. Kennedy was showing signs of reconsidering Vietnam policy in mid to late 1963. He wrote to Bobby Kennedy he wasn't inclined to listen to his generals on increasing numbers because when he had visited French troops fighting in large numbers in Vietnam in the 1950s he recognised the futility of their fight may become a futile war for America.

 

Sadly we will never know what may have been with JFK.

 

But we will with Trump. And i fear from his rhetoric the USA is about to cause us in Europe a lot more bother with refugees by oblitering huge chunks of Syria and Iraq.

JFK's assassination assured his reputation as a great left/liberal president would for many be unsullied. But I think Kennedy would have been too worried about being seen to be "soft on communism" to have resisted the generals on Vietnam just as he had to demonstrate his cojones at the Bay of Pigs and in his fierce anti-Castro policies, if elaborate assassination plots can be described as policies. Only right wing politicians (Nixon, Reagan) have been willing to risk accusations of being weak on communism and have sought reconciliation with Russia and China. Kennedy was also weak on civil rights - Eisenhower was less reluctant to send in the National Guard to Southern States in defence of  the Brown vs The Dept of Education ruling on desegregation. Kennedy still needed Democratic support in the South, but lacked Johnson's remaining clout in the South. JFK would never have delivered what LBJ did on Civil Rights (admittedly helped by the post-JFK sympathy vote). As for misogynism and abuse of power in relation to treatment of women, JFK made Trump look like a boy scout, but was lucky that in his era "indiscretions" were not reported.

 

Trump's actions remain to be seen but so far his words suggest he is likely to be more reluctant than most of his predecessors to intervene abroad.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Francis Albert

[JamboX2]

There are none, none at all, there are only "sources" that some people agree with, if you're "source" is from the left, the centre/right dismiss it, if it's from the right, the left dismiss it, this is a circular argument that nobody is going to win!

By source I was more meaning are you willing to believe a blogger who has said there's oil in the Clyde on the basis of heresay and speculation or a journalist with a corroborated article and multiple sources of information building their argument up.

 

That works both ways.

 

The point I was making, which has spiralled into the wider argument of credibility of reporting, is that there is blatant fake news and real news. Of course, this is nothing new. Intelligence agencies globally have destabilised governments and organisations via "fake news". However, the prevalence of it in a western election is inctedible and clearly worked. It detracted from real concerns at all stages over Trump's suitability at all stages and focused on nonsense stories about Hillary's health to her financial affairs. Many claims, as UA has posted on here with support are unfounded, have shown to not be illegal or date back to previous rumours over the Clintons when Bill was President.

 

It's almost like a man who tried to give free healthcare, end don't ask don't tell and spread the wealth about a bit more is not liked by major right wing groups and lobbyists is the US...

[JamboX2]

Do you have any examples of this "fake news" from RT? Could it be that the very notion that they produce it, is in itself fake news?

 

Are you suggesting that "papers of record" as you describe them are not involved in fake news? You are saying that those of us who question the content of these papers of record are unable to form valid opinions. If so, how do you explain this timely event in the Washington Post? http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/01/01/fake-news-and-how-the-washington-post-rewrote-its-story-on-russian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#6a1ddf1b291e

 

Are you making an argument for stricter regulation of the media? How do you know MO isn't a TS anyway?

I'm currently away from a laptop so can't really respond in full. On your last point though, yes. In America the regulations on media ownership and impartial televised and broadcast reporting of news need seriously tightened.

[JamboX2]

JFK's assassination assured his reputation as a great left/liberal president would for many be unsullied. But I think Kennedy would have been too worried about being seen to be "soft on communism" to have resisted the generals on Vietnam just as he had to demonstrate his cojones at the Bay of Pigs and in his fierce anti-Castro policies, if elaborate assassination plots can be described as policies. Only right wing politicians (Nixon, Reagan) have been willing to risk accusations of being weak on communism and have sought reconciliation with Russia and China. Kennedy was also weak on civil rights - Eisenhower was less reluctant to send in the National Guard to Southern States in defence of the Brown vs The Dept of Education ruling on desegregation. Kennedy still needed Democratic support in the South, but lacked Johnson's remaining clout in the South. JFK would never have delivered what LBJ did on Civil Rights (admittedly helped by the post-JFK sympathy vote). As for misogynism and abuse of power in relation to treatment of women, JFK made Trump look like a boy scout, but was lucky that in his era "indiscretions" were not reported.

 

Trump's actions remain to be seen but so far his words suggest he is likely to be more reluctant than most of his predecessors to intervene abroad.

Whilst hesitant to make this a Trump v Kennedy debate, it has been said both John F and Bobby Kennedy by 1963 were in agreement on Vietnam and that was to desculate the war. If anything the Bay of Pigs fiasco hardened Kennedy's resolve the other way. The Untold History of America (book) has reports and accounts from Kennedy aids and released memos which show how Kennedy didn't trust his generals or the CIA after that debacle. Afterall, they wantesmd him to steam roller Cuba in the Missile crisis.

 

Don't get me wrong. A premature death has saved his reputation somewhat. And no doubting that Johnson's Great Society was won on the backs of congressional sympathy (as well as LBJ's bullying). But don't forget Nixon escalated the war massively. Only to suffer defeat. His engagement with China was in part a move to isolate Moscow further and his legacy in terms of use of the CIA lead to the assassination of men like Allende in Chile and the use of the CIA to destabilise Latin American governments and replace them with tin pot military despots. Regan's approach is very much similar. Rather than engage in detente he escalated defence spending to bankrupt the USSR regardless of the cost, funded groups like the Mujahadeen who would cause major blowback (much like the toppling of Iran's government in the 1950s would) and invaded the defenceless island of Grenada and engage in things like the Contras...

 

Strongmen without reason everyone.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

You may prefer american hegemony but since ww2 ended millions have paid for that.

As for the piddly partisan stories of the clinton foundation.

Really if you're happy with that standard then i dont know why you can complain about trump.

 

I will answer your post more fully when less tired.

 

I would very much like for American hegemony to end -- it's bad for us and it's bad for the rest of the world. But two highly authoritarian states appear to be the ones most poised to take advantage of that. I would far rather that other strong liberal democracies were ready to step into the breach.  There's a small but actually believable chance that we're entering a period where the US will require Germany to step in to save us from fascism -- irony of ironies.

 

Clinton Foundation "scandals," similar to the email server, basically boil down to using the work phone to make fundraising calls.  That's on the level of Bill letting their big donors have a night in the Lincoln bedroom in the White House.  Yes, it's bad practice, but as scandals go it's about up there with being caught stealing a box of pens and a box of paper clips from the office supply cabinet while Trump is openly using his newfound political power to score multi-million dollar business deals.

 

Hope you get some rest -- JKB can wait.

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

Meanwhile, Trump is busy having a twitter argument with Arnie about each others ratings for the apprentice. 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Whilst hesitant to make this a Trump v Kennedy debate, it has been said both John F and Bobby Kennedy by 1963 were in agreement on Vietnam and that was to desculate the war. If anything the Bay of Pigs fiasco hardened Kennedy's resolve the other way. The Untold History of America (book) has reports and accounts from Kennedy aids and released memos which show how Kennedy didn't trust his generals or the CIA after that debacle. Afterall, they wantesmd him to steam roller Cuba in the Missile crisis.

 

Don't get me wrong. A premature death has saved his reputation somewhat. And no doubting that Johnson's Great Society was won on the backs of congressional sympathy (as well as LBJ's bullying). But don't forget Nixon escalated the war massively. Only to suffer defeat. His engagement with China was in part a move to isolate Moscow further and his legacy in terms of use of the CIA lead to the assassination of men like Allende in Chile and the use of the CIA to destabilise Latin American governments and replace them with tin pot military despots. Regan's approach is very much similar. Rather than engage in detente he escalated defence spending to bankrupt the USSR regardless of the cost, funded groups like the Mujahadeen who would cause major blowback (much like the toppling of Iran's government in the 1950s would) and invaded the defenceless island of Grenada and engage in things like the Contras...

 

Strongmen without reason everyone.

 

Indeed.  I idolized JFK growing up because of his soaring rhetoric but actual study of history has revealed him to be a flawed character.  Nonetheless, all who study the Cuban missile crisis in depth speak to JFK's calm in the middle of an incredibly dangerous time for the whole world.  We never should have been in Vietnam, but it was Johnson's hard man attitude that did more damage than anyone else.  Errol Morris's documentary, "The Fog of War" is an extended interview with Robert Macnamara and is well worth the watch.

 

Nixon's inferiority complex did as much damage, but without Johnson's recklessness, the Democratic party would have been united in 1968 and Humphrey would have won, and America would be a very different place than it is today.

[Francis Albert]

I would very much like for American hegemony to end -- it's bad for us and it's bad for the rest of the world. But two highly authoritarian states appear to be the ones most poised to take advantage of that. I would far rather that other strong liberal democracies were ready to step into the breach.  There's a small but actually believable chance that we're entering a period where the US will require Germany to step in to save us from fascism -- irony of ironies.

 

Clinton Foundation "scandals," similar to the email server, basically boil down to using the work phone to make fundraising calls.  That's on the level of Bill letting their big donors have a night in the Lincoln bedroom in the White House.  Yes, it's bad practice, but as scandals go it's about up there with being caught stealing a box of pens and a box of paper clips from the office supply cabinet while Trump is openly using his newfound political power to score multi-million dollar business deals.

 

Hope you get some rest -- JKB can wait.

What multi-million business deals has Trump secured since his election?

 

And how exactly (or approximately) is Germany going to do to save us from fascism?

 

And your summary of what the Clinton Foundation did to raise money is laughably na?ve. Yep they phoned the Moroccan King and he  just chucked them a few million as he would any charitable foundation that had his number. With no expectation that a future Clinton president might just be grateful.

[jake]

I would very much like for American hegemony to end -- it's bad for us and it's bad for the rest of the world. But two highly authoritarian states appear to be the ones most poised to take advantage of that. I would far rather that other strong liberal democracies were ready to step into the breach. There's a small but actually believable chance that we're entering a period where the US will require Germany to step in to save us from fascism -- irony of ironies.

 

Clinton Foundation "scandals," similar to the email server, basically boil down to using the work phone to make fundraising calls. That's on the level of Bill letting their big donors have a night in the Lincoln bedroom in the White House. Yes, it's bad practice, but as scandals go it's about up there with being caught stealing a box of pens and a box of paper clips from the office supply cabinet while Trump is openly using his newfound political power to score multi-million dollar business deals.

 

Hope you get some rest -- JKB can wait.

 

 

Your heart i suppose is in the right place but you choose to ignore how corrupt the clintons are and excuse their behaviour by saying others are worse.

 

You also because of your political outlook choose to ignore the cia involvement in world affairs of the past decade because obamas been president.

 

But hey i only listen to fake news and you and others are so clever you can distinguish from the msm whats true and whats not.

 

I did mean to respond to the earlier post but feel you and others have no respect and not you so much just resort to name calling.

 

As for the assumption that we have a free democracy i find that laughable .

There is virtually no difference between main stream political parties in most western democracies.

And indeed your precious clintons rigged their own parties elections.

 

Once again i ask you and jambo x2 to provide a list of media outlets that i can read which i should believe.

[jake]

Hilary Clinton.

Admits saudi arabia funds and supports isis.

Her top aide describes the sale of 60 billion dollars worth of arms to the same country as top priority.

While her foundation accepts 25 million dollars from the same country.

 

Is that fake news?

 

Genuine question .

 

Saudi Arabia that bastion of human rights.

[jake]

Its only pens and paperclips.

[J.T.F.Robertson]

Meanwhile, Trump is busy having a twitter argument with Arnie about each others ratings for the apprentice.

 

He's prioritizing.

 

The man's a balloon, htf it has ever come to this reality tells you all you need to know about most of the American "electorate".

 

I don't give much of a shit about the whole thing, (too late for me) but it's a sick joke.