Up Like Trump

[Barkly186]

I look forward to seeing Trump's supporters hailing him as a genius for lying to all of his suppprters to win the presidency. They will claim that they knew all along and were just going along with it for appearances sake. Because they, like Trump, really had something completely different in mind for his presidency. They will not reveal what that plan is until Trump executes it of course. But afterwards they will hail him as a great businessman that fooled everyone (except his supporters because they knew).

You can see that happening already. After Syria bombing, middle finger to Russia, moving aircarrier to NK... The only promise he may fulfill is the boarder wall with Mexico. he disappointed a lot of people tho and many, many people are starting to doubt him.. but hey, I'd rather have him than Hillary.

Nope. Hillary would have been far worse. She would have triggered a war with Russia, and it might have progressed in to a world war. I am still willing to give the benefit of doubt to Trump. Perhaps he is doing this just to improve his approval ratings.

Trump during election campaign did not hide the fact that he wants to increase the defence budget of America. How to do it without war? I'm sure Trump will continue to fight to maintain the importance of the army and the military-industrial complex. The Democrats are less aggressive.

[GreenBits]

Trump will make Americans richer:  ( but just Ivanka, Eric, Donald Jr., Barron, Melania & Military Industrial Complex:)


https://newrepublic.com/minutes/138900/donald-trump-absolutely-going-use-presidency-make-money

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/donald-trumps-2020-re-election-bid-making-him-richer

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/03/worse-dick-cheney-trump-will-get-richer

You forgot big oil, coal and and the private prison system. They are gonna definitely be made great again, at the expense of all.

Oh. Can't forget rolling back Wall Street regulations.

[DooMAD]

You forgot big oil, coal and and the private prison system. They are gonna definitely be made great again, at the expense of all.

Oh. Can't forget rolling back Wall Street regulations.

Make "too big to fail, too big to jail" great again.  

I can't help but think this recent shift to the populist right will be short lived once people realise both Trump and Brexit are clearly analogous to shooting yourself in the foot.  They just found another way to shift power, control and money to the one-percenters and people bought into it thinking things would somehow be different this time.  One day people might realise that there simply aren't career politicians with the interests of the general public at heart.  That's just not how it works.  The turkeys need to stop voting for Christmas.

[Spendulus]

I look forward to seeing Trump's supporters hailing him as a genius for lying to all of his suppprters to win the presidency. They will claim that they knew all along and were just going along with it for appearances sake. Because they, like Trump, really had something completely different in mind for his presidency. They will not reveal what that plan is until Trump executes it of course. But afterwards they will hail him as a great businessman that fooled everyone (except his supporters because they knew).

You can see that happening already. After Syria bombing, middle finger to Russia, moving aircarrier to NK... The only promise he may fulfill is the boarder wall with Mexico. he disappointed a lot of people tho and many, many people are starting to doubt him.. but hey, I'd rather have him than Hillary.

Nope. Hillary would have been far worse. She would have triggered a war with Russia, and it might have progressed in to a world war. I am still willing to give the benefit of doubt to Trump. Perhaps he is doing this just to improve his approval ratings.

Trump during election campaign did not hide the fact that he wants to increase the defence budget of America. How to do it without war? I'm sure Trump will continue to fight to maintain the importance of the army and the military-industrial complex. The Democrats are less aggressive.

During the election, Hillary was more aggressively talking about using military force. Against Russia, the enemy, as I recall.

[criptix]

Russian state television has no doubt who is unpredictable enough to bring the world to war in the North Korean crisis, and it’s not the reclusive communist dictator Kim Jong-Un.

According to Dmitry Kiselyov, the Kremlin’s top TV mouthpiece, the riskiest is Donald Trump, the man Russian officials and propagandists hailed just a few weeks ago as just the kind of leader the world needed.

In the latest sign of the Kremlin’s abrupt about-face on its erstwhile American hero, Kiselyov pronounced Trump “more dangerous” than his North Korean counterpart. “Trump is more impulsive and unpredictable than Kim Jong Un,” he told viewers of his prime-time Sunday “Vesti Nedelyi” program, which earlier this year carried paeans to Trump for his pledge to warm up relations with Russia.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-17/russia-warns-u-s-not-to-use-force-unilaterally-against-n-korea

Is the never ending love story finished? 

[tvbcof]

You forgot big oil, coal and and the private prison system. They are gonna definitely be made great again, at the expense of all.

Oh. Can't forget rolling back Wall Street regulations.

Make "too big to fail, too big to jail" great again.  

I can't help but think this recent shift to the populist right will be short lived once people realise both Trump and Brexit are clearly analogous to shooting yourself in the foot.  They just found another way to shift power, control and money to the one-percenters and people bought into it thinking things would somehow be different this time.  One day people might realise that there simply aren't career politicians with the interests of the general public at heart.  That's just not how it works.  The turkeys need to stop voting for Christmas.

I don't know why populism would necessarily become unpopular just because we peeps were chumped by an elitist.  Indeed, I drifted away from the Left in part because they increasingly favored elitism and hardly even pay lip-service to populism any more.  Getting chumped only strengthened my preference for real populism.

It is possible for a wealthy person to be a good leader and reluctantly take it upon himself to be one.  Cincinnatus has cities named after him thousands of years after his death because certain kinds of decency are universally valued.  There was at least a hope that Trump would have some ambitions along these lines, but it actually didn't matter much.  As with the Obama/McCain race, the alternative was a known mega-disaster.

The shame of things from my perspective is that I could have saved myself a lot of time and a little money by spending 5 minutes listening to the anti-semite folks and just going with what they say.  I was aware that they guy was ultra-Jewey from Ezra Levant (himself a very proud Jew in the media who, amusingly enough, noted in his reporting that he hoped the goy would not pay attention to his segment.)  I had to just hope that Trump didn't prove to be an Israel First Zionista once in office, but I considered it a distinct possibility and probably the biggest risk.  That's why I always considered Trump to be a coin toss and resolved to wait at least 6 months before solidifying any conclusions.  Took only 2 months.

[Barrymore]

I look forward to seeing Trump's supporters hailing him as a genius for lying to all of his suppprters to win the presidency. They will claim that they knew all along and were just going along with it for appearances sake. Because they, like Trump, really had something completely different in mind for his presidency. They will not reveal what that plan is until Trump executes it of course. But afterwards they will hail him as a great businessman that fooled everyone (except his supporters because they knew).

You can see that happening already. After Syria bombing, middle finger to Russia, moving aircarrier to NK... The only promise he may fulfill is the boarder wall with Mexico. he disappointed a lot of people tho and many, many people are starting to doubt him.. but hey, I'd rather have him than Hillary.

Nope. Hillary would have been far worse. She would have triggered a war with Russia, and it might have progressed in to a world war. I am still willing to give the benefit of doubt to Trump. Perhaps he is doing this just to improve his approval ratings.

Trump during election campaign did not hide the fact that he wants to increase the defence budget of America. How to do it without war? I'm sure Trump will continue to fight to maintain the importance of the army and the military-industrial complex. The Democrats are less aggressive.

During the election, Hillary was more aggressively talking about using military force. Against Russia, the enemy, as I recall.

This is ridiculous of course, but Hillary Clinton just spoke about the opposition of Russia, but in fact we all remember that the Obama administration did nothing to stop Putin and Trump talked about his friendship with Putin, but his actions more aggressive.

[GreenBits]

I look forward to seeing Trump's supporters hailing him as a genius for lying to all of his suppprters to win the presidency. They will claim that they knew all along and were just going along with it for appearances sake. Because they, like Trump, really had something completely different in mind for his presidency. They will not reveal what that plan is until Trump executes it of course. But afterwards they will hail him as a great businessman that fooled everyone (except his supporters because they knew).

You can see that happening already. After Syria bombing, middle finger to Russia, moving aircarrier to NK... The only promise he may fulfill is the boarder wall with Mexico. he disappointed a lot of people tho and many, many people are starting to doubt him.. but hey, I'd rather have him than Hillary.

Nope. Hillary would have been far worse. She would have triggered a war with Russia, and it might have progressed in to a world war. I am still willing to give the benefit of doubt to Trump. Perhaps he is doing this just to improve his approval ratings.

Trump during election campaign did not hide the fact that he wants to increase the defence budget of America. How to do it without war? I'm sure Trump will continue to fight to maintain the importance of the army and the military-industrial complex. The Democrats are less aggressive.

During the election, Hillary was more aggressively talking about using military force. Against Russia, the enemy, as I recall.

This is ridiculous of course, but Hillary Clinton just spoke about the opposition of Russia, but in fact we all remember that the Obama administration did nothing to stop Putin and Trump talked about his friendship with Putin, but his actions more aggressive.

Exactly, it's like we forgot that for the past few decades, we have been no friend of Russia. But, since the election, most of the American public, and all of the GOP, seem to have forgotten this fact. After the Russian role in the election is fully revealed, Russia will again be a badbadnotgood.

[signature200]

I look forward to seeing Trump's supporters hailing him as a genius for lying to all of his suppprters to win the presidency. They will claim that they knew all along and were just going along with it for appearances sake. Because they, like Trump, really had something completely different in mind for his presidency. They will not reveal what that plan is until Trump executes it of course. But afterwards they will hail him as a great businessman that fooled everyone (except his supporters because they knew).

You can see that happening already. After Syria bombing, middle finger to Russia, moving aircarrier to NK... The only promise he may fulfill is the boarder wall with Mexico. he disappointed a lot of people tho and many, many people are starting to doubt him.. but hey, I'd rather have him than Hillary.

Nope. Hillary would have been far worse. She would have triggered a war with Russia, and it might have progressed in to a world war. I am still willing to give the benefit of doubt to Trump. Perhaps he is doing this just to improve his approval ratings.

Trump during election campaign did not hide the fact that he wants to increase the defence budget of America. How to do it without war? I'm sure Trump will continue to fight to maintain the importance of the army and the military-industrial complex. The Democrats are less aggressive.

During the election, Hillary was more aggressively talking about using military force. Against Russia, the enemy, as I recall.

This is ridiculous of course, but Hillary Clinton just spoke about the opposition of Russia, but in fact we all remember that the Obama administration did nothing to stop Putin and Trump talked about his friendship with Putin, but his actions more aggressive.

Exactly, it's like we forgot that for the past few decades, we have been no friend of Russia. But, since the election, most of the American public, and all of the GOP, seem to have forgotten this fact. After the Russian role in the election is fully revealed, Russia will again be a badbadnotgood.

The Russians have never not been a friend of America. They have always supported regimes which fought against the United States. Have you seen any changes? The only change I saw is that the Russian began to allow themselves to interfere in the internal Affairs of America. Before, I don't remember.

[tvbcof]

Exactly, it's like we forgot that for the past few decades, we have been no friend of Russia. But, since the election, most of the American public, and all of the GOP, seem to have forgotten this fact. After the Russian role in the election is fully revealed, Russia will again be a badbadnotgood.

After a year nobody can describe even a mechanism by which 'Russia interfered with the election.'  Indeed, nobody even tries.  All I see are some nebulous attempts to imply that some media platforms (e.g., RT) allowed some political stories which were negative about one political party (never mind that they tended to be perfectly true.)

To the extent that there was any genuine hacking into the election infrastructure itself, it looks fairly clear that it was Obama's DHS by a quick peak at the IP address information.  Some states called the feds out on the attacks.  It's also fairly clear that the vote tabulation systems are flawed by design at a variety of points.

I actually really like the idea that American politicians should be held to a standard of having only transparent conversations with 'non-American entities'.  That would include ALL other nation states, all media outlets, all tax exempt foundations and NGOs, all corporations, and all individuals who hold citizenship in any other country.  Going after anyone who had anything to do with Russia or anyone who was a Russian sets a precedent that could and should apply to very many other entities.

[coins4meh]

I look forward to seeing Trump's supporters hailing him as a genius for lying to all of his suppprters to win the presidency. They will claim that they knew all along and were just going along with it for appearances sake. Because they, like Trump, really had something completely different in mind for his presidency. They will not reveal what that plan is until Trump executes it of course. But afterwards they will hail him as a great businessman that fooled everyone (except his supporters because they knew).

You can see that happening already. After Syria bombing, middle finger to Russia, moving aircarrier to NK... The only promise he may fulfill is the boarder wall with Mexico. he disappointed a lot of people tho and many, many people are starting to doubt him.. but hey, I'd rather have him than Hillary.

Aren't all politicians disappointments?

[GreenBits]

Exactly, it's like we forgot that for the past few decades, we have been no friend of Russia. But, since the election, most of the American public, and all of the GOP, seem to have forgotten this fact. After the Russian role in the election is fully revealed, Russia will again be a badbadnotgood.

After a year nobody can describe even a mechanism by which 'Russia interfered with the election.'  Indeed, nobody even tries.  All I see are some nebulous attempts to imply that some media platforms (e.g., RT) allowed some political stories which were negative about one political party (never mind that they tended to be perfectly true.)

To the extent that there was any genuine hacking into the election infrastructure itself, it looks fairly clear that it was Obama's DHS by a quick peak at the IP address information.  Some states called the feds out on the attacks.  It's also fairly clear that the vote tabulation systems are flawed by design at a variety of points.

I actually really like the idea that American politicians should be held to a standard of having only transparent conversations with 'non-American entities'.  That would include ALL other nation states, all media outlets, all tax exempt foundations and NGOs, all corporations, and all individuals who hold citizenship in any other country.  Going after anyone who had anything to do with Russia or anyone who was a Russian sets a precedent that could and should apply to very many other entities.

We differ on this, but it's hard to explain my position if you don't heed any of the mainstream media sources. I read both sides, from Fox/Breitbart to Politico/Rawstory. I want as many details as possible.

I do feel that the emails being released did cost Hilary x number of votes. She deserved it, whatever, but we both have to agree that at least say, 100 people changed their voting outcome because of that revalation. Even though that is statistically insignificant, it was an effect. Can we both say at least 5 percent of Hilary voters turned? Even at 1 percent, this is still a whole lot of people. That, in my opinion, is a tainted result. And that doesn't speak to the effect of the bots on social media platforms; some people take social.media as a straight up news source. If they did this, and it seems like they did, I'm saying they didn't half step, they did this right. They wouldnt risk global outrage without the trade off being worth it. And we have other intelligence agencies giving us (US intell) Intel they deemed suspicious about Trumps guys. Unbidden. So the communications were so suspicious that our allies felt the need to point them out.
If it matters, our intelligence agencies have all agreed Russia participated.in a state sponsored effort to change the results of the election. Also, it all leaks so far, but the leaks suggest that Trumps surrogates had contact with Russian intelligence agents, without declaring said communications. Anything else I would point out is admitted hearsay, there are a few more kernels of truth to pick out. From one wizened head to another, I really think we will find Trump reached out to get assistance from Russia with the election. Trumps ties to the Russian underworld (check it out) make me more inclined to believe the whispers, those are actual facts. This is actually the reason why the thing about Obama wiretapping cropped up, they were indeed surveiling the tower, but becuase they were eavesdropping on the disproportionate amount of mafia figures residing in the hotel. Which is suspicious.

[Spendulus]

....our intelligence agencies have all agreed Russia participated.in a state sponsored effort to change the results of the election....

That's a lie.

[RoomBot]

Sushi, anyone?

[Sithara007]

The Russians have never not been a friend of America. They have always supported regimes which fought against the United States. Have you seen any changes? The only change I saw is that the Russian began to allow themselves to interfere in the internal Affairs of America. Before, I don't remember.

Russians have supported secular regimes instead of Islamic fiefdoms. Look at Syria. Bashar al Assad is the last remaining secular ruler in the entire Middle East. Russia is right in supporting him.

[Bitbobb]

Exactly, it's like we forgot that for the past few decades, we have been no friend of Russia. But, since the election, most of the American public, and all of the GOP, seem to have forgotten this fact. After the Russian role in the election is fully revealed, Russia will again be a badbadnotgood.

After a year nobody can describe even a mechanism by which 'Russia interfered with the election.'  Indeed, nobody even tries.  All I see are some nebulous attempts to imply that some media platforms (e.g., RT) allowed some political stories which were negative about one political party (never mind that they tended to be perfectly true.)

To the extent that there was any genuine hacking into the election infrastructure itself, it looks fairly clear that it was Obama's DHS by a quick peak at the IP address information.  Some states called the feds out on the attacks.  It's also fairly clear that the vote tabulation systems are flawed by design at a variety of points.

I actually really like the idea that American politicians should be held to a standard of having only transparent conversations with 'non-American entities'.  That would include ALL other nation states, all media outlets, all tax exempt foundations and NGOs, all corporations, and all individuals who hold citizenship in any other country.  Going after anyone who had anything to do with Russia or anyone who was a Russian sets a precedent that could and should apply to very many other entities.

enter blockchain voting...(now if I could just find a forum to post in where the main focus is solving problems using cryptography...)

[Bitbobb]

Exactly, it's like we forgot that for the past few decades, we have been no friend of Russia. But, since the election, most of the American public, and all of the GOP, seem to have forgotten this fact. After the Russian role in the election is fully revealed, Russia will again be a badbadnotgood.

After a year nobody can describe even a mechanism by which 'Russia interfered with the election.'  Indeed, nobody even tries.  All I see are some nebulous attempts to imply that some media platforms (e.g., RT) allowed some political stories which were negative about one political party (never mind that they tended to be perfectly true.)

To the extent that there was any genuine hacking into the election infrastructure itself, it looks fairly clear that it was Obama's DHS by a quick peak at the IP address information.  Some states called the feds out on the attacks.  It's also fairly clear that the vote tabulation systems are flawed by design at a variety of points.

I actually really like the idea that American politicians should be held to a standard of having only transparent conversations with 'non-American entities'.  That would include ALL other nation states, all media outlets, all tax exempt foundations and NGOs, all corporations, and all individuals who hold citizenship in any other country.  Going after anyone who had anything to do with Russia or anyone who was a Russian sets a precedent that could and should apply to very many other entities.

We differ on this, but it's hard to explain my position if you don't heed any of the mainstream media sources. I read both sides, from Fox/Breitbart to Politico/Rawstory. I want as many details as possible.

I do feel that the emails being released did cost Hilary x number of votes. She deserved it, whatever, but we both have to agree that at least say, 100 people changed their voting outcome because of that revalation. Even though that is statistically insignificant, it was an effect. Can we both say at least 5 percent of Hilary voters turned? Even at 1 percent, this is still a whole lot of people. That, in my opinion, is a tainted result. And that doesn't speak to the effect of the bots on social media platforms; some people take social.media as a straight up news source. If they did this, and it seems like they did, I'm saying they didn't half step, they did this right. They wouldnt risk global outrage without the trade off being worth it. And we have other intelligence agencies giving us (US intell) Intel they deemed suspicious about Trumps guys. Unbidden. So the communications were so suspicious that our allies felt the need to point them out.
If it matters, our intelligence agencies have all agreed Russia participated.in a state sponsored effort to change the results of the election. Also, it all leaks so far, but the leaks suggest that Trumps surrogates had contact with Russian intelligence agents, without declaring said communications. Anything else I would point out is admitted hearsay, there are a few more kernels of truth to pick out. From one wizened head to another, I really think we will find Trump reached out to get assistance from Russia with the election. Trumps ties to the Russian underworld (check it out) make me more inclined to believe the whispers, those are actual facts. This is actually the reason why the thing about Obama wiretapping cropped up, they were indeed surveiling the tower, but becuase they were eavesdropping on the disproportionate amount of mafia figures residing in the hotel. Which is suspicious.

What source are your using to make the claim that Russia did something to influence the election?  I think this is a fake news story from Hillary camp since last November.  It started a few minutes after Hillary realized she lost the election she was told was rigged to make her win by a pre determined number.  In fact the number was reversed to send a clear message to Hillary..

Maybe you really think the Russians did something so can you please cite or source your claim?  Thanks!

[Bitbobb]

The Russians have never not been a friend of America. They have always supported regimes which fought against the United States. Have you seen any changes? The only change I saw is that the Russian began to allow themselves to interfere in the internal Affairs of America. Before, I don't remember.

Russians have supported secular regimes instead of Islamic fiefdoms. Look at Syria. Bashar al Assad is the last remaining secular ruler in the entire Middle East. Russia is right in supporting him.

Yeah and Assad let's Christians live in Syria in peace... He even protects them...  Can you say that about the militants/ rebels?

[tvbcof]

enter blockchain voting...(now if I could just find a forum to post in where the main focus is solving problems using cryptography...)

I don't even think the solution is that complicated.  In fact it is super easy:

 - Severe penalties for cheaters and actual enforcement.

 - Triplicate paper forms with random tamper-proof identifiers.

 - At least two adversarial counting groups (usually dems, repubs.)

 - Counts must match.  If not, the orig held by the voter can be called to see who the cheater is.

The real problem at this point are the computer based tabulations.  It was these databases which were the target for the hackers, or more simply, the cheaters.  It is understood at this point that the mainstream media can put out results make of whole cloth and nobody will question it.  If they do do a re-count the cheaters will be protected (e.g., 2016 Detroit) since actually prosecuting people would threaten the perception of America as a democracy in the minds of the sheep and thus create a 'threat to national security.'

[Bitbobb]

You forgot big oil, coal and and the private prison system. They are gonna definitely be made great again, at the expense of all.

Oh. Can't forget rolling back Wall Street regulations.

Make "too big to fail, too big to jail" great again.  

I can't help but think this recent shift to the populist right will be short lived once people realise both Trump and Brexit are clearly analogous to shooting yourself in the foot.  They just found another way to shift power, control and money to the one-percenters and people bought into it thinking things would somehow be different this time.  One day people might realise that there simply aren't career politicians with the interests of the general public at heart.  That's just not how it works.  The turkeys need to stop voting for Christmas.

I don't know why populism would necessarily become unpopular just because we peeps were chumped by an elitist.  Indeed, I drifted away from the Left in part because they increasingly favored elitism and hardly even pay lip-service to populism any more.  Getting chumped only strengthened my preference for real populism.

It is possible for a wealthy person to be a good leader and reluctantly take it upon himself to be one.  Cincinnatus has cities named after him thousands of years after his death because certain kinds of decency are universally valued.  There was at least a hope that Trump would have some ambitions along these lines, but it actually didn't matter much.  As with the Obama/McCain race, the alternative was a known mega-disaster.

The shame of things from my perspective is that I could have saved myself a lot of time and a little money by spending 5 minutes listening to the anti-semite folks and just going with what they say.  I was aware that they guy was ultra-Jewey from Ezra Levant (himself a very proud Jew in the media who, amusingly enough, noted in his reporting that he hoped the goy would not pay attention to his segment.)  I had to just hope that Trump didn't prove to be an Israel First Zionista once in office, but I considered it a distinct possibility and probably the biggest risk.  That's why I always considered Trump to be a coin toss and resolved to wait at least 6 months before solidifying any conclusions.  Took only 2 months.