[RESULTS ARE FINAL] 2016 Election for President of the United States | Donald Trump Victory

[Aerion Brightflame]

It's been confirmed that Trump wants to let the VP be in charge of foreign and domestic policy.  So I guess he plans on just being a figurehead.

 

That was a rumour about an offer made to Kasich, which was obviously denied. I don't believe there's any confirmation that he extended the same offer to Pence, or that the offer to Kasich was even legitimate. 

 

Unless there's been some development since I first raised the story. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That was a rumour about an offer made to Kasich, which was obviously denied. I don't believe there's any confirmation that he extended the same offer to Pence, or that the offer to Kasich was even legitimate. 

 

Unless there's been some development since I first raised the story. 

“I never got a call. Apparently my aides did,” Kasich told Jake Tapper on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/john-kasich-donald-trump-vp

It's been confirmed that Trump wants to let the VP be in charge of foreign and domestic policy.  So I guess he plans on just being a figurehead.

If going around the liberal media a couple times is "confirmation"

 

Then yeah, totally. 

 

I call it a "circle-jerk" but clearly our standards are different for "confirmation"

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You missed his point.

 

He's saying that it's easy to make one sound worse/better by simplifying their positive/negative traits.

 

Also. You're generalizing by saying that Trump being an jabroni is the only issue. The one you specifically quoted even said he's worried that Trump might end up lashing out because of his ego. (Which I don't believe he'd go that far but I could see him doing something stupid because of it)

I'm less worried about how he's an jabroni and more worried about how he doesn't know how to speak diplomatically, which is important, and doesn't seem to have much actual knowledge of what to do or how to be a leader.

Well sure...lets say Trump is undiplomatic, Hillary's handling of the Arab Spring and pitiful attempts to re-ignite the cold war don't really speak much for her side on that issue...needless to say, Trump's not implicated in whoring out power based on donations as far as I know

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

 

It's a DIA memo partially declassified under FOIA by Judicial Watch, and it was written in 2012.

 

The memo states : ”THE SALAFIST, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA”.

 

It also states that : ”THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION".

 

Elsewhere, it says : ”OPPOSITION FORCES ARE TRYING TO CONTROL THE EASTERN AREAS (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN IRAQI PROVINCES (MOSUL AND ANBAR), IN ADDITION TO NEIGHBORING TURKISH BORDERS. WESTERN COUNTRIES, THE GULF STATES AND TURKEY ARE SUPPORTING THESE EFFORTS".

 

And also : "IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME"

 

And finally : "ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA".

 

So, to review: US intelligence knew that the anti-Assad opposition were primarily made up of radical Islamists (i.e. Salafists, AQ, and the Muslim Brotherhood). The memo also states that the West (which would include the US), the Gulf States, and Turkey support this opposition and their efforts to control Eastern Syria. The memo does not split hairs and delineate that we only support the "moderate elements". In fact, that term or related terms describing moderate rebels appear nowhere in the memo. Underscoring that the US was supporting the opposition regardless of its makeup, the last two passages cited make clear that the "supporting powers" (elsewhere defined as the West, Gulf States, & Turkey) actually want a Salafist principality (Islamic State) to emerge in Eastern Syria, because it would undermine Assad's hold on Syria.

 

The "moderate rebels" narrative is just not present in the DIA memo. The moderate rebels only seem to exist in State Department PR, White House PR, and mainstream media. If the moderate rebels ever did exist at this stage in the Syrian War, they were likely just cutouts for funneling money and weapons into the arms of Al Nusra (i.e. AQ), ISIS, and other radical Islamists.

 

Some people say that the creation of ISIS and the arming of this and other Islamist jihadist groups were an unintended consequence of Obama's and Hillary's policy, and not a goal of that policy itself. But can we trust that it was merely an unintended consequence? The DIA memo makes clear that the Syrian opposition, even though it was dominated by Islamist extremists, was supported by the West. This support even included support for their efforts to take Eastern Syria and establish a Salafist principality (Islamic State) there. And while the memo doesn't specify if this support was material support or just "cheering them on", there is an abundance of evidence documenting that US arms ended up in the hands of ISIS and other terrorists in Syria/Iraq.

 

The Obama administration and their cheerleaders/apologists can always claim "unintended consequences" as way to give themselves plausible deniability, but how plausible are their denials in practice?

 

It doesn’t take a genius to see that the consequences of the Obama administration’s actions were entirely predictable. Even if they did support factions they deemed ‘moderate’, did they not expect that weapons, aid, and money would eventually get snatched up by the most powerful forces driving the opposition in Syria, i.e. Al Qaeda, Salafists, and the Muslim Brotherhood? Were they not warned by the DIA that continued support for the opposition would result in a “Salafist principality” emerging in Eastern Syria (a warning which unfortunately turned out to be true)? And what was their expected endgame for Syria? Even if they were able to topple Assad by supporting the so-called "moderate elements", did they expect that these same moderates would assume control of Syria after Assad being deposed? No reasonable person could expect such a thing. Even if we trust the administration’s “moderate rebels” claims, the DIA memo makes clear that these factions were outmatched by the larger players driving the opposition, the Islamist extremist factions. In other words, the Obama administration knew these groups were the main composition of the opposition, and yet did not withdraw their support.

 

A reasonable observer would come to no other conclusion than that the Obama administration's intended policy was to topple Assad by any means necessary, including by instrumentalizing extremist groups for this purpose, such as the ones that would declare themselves as ISIS in 2013. This policy also meant that as long as it was necessary for carrying out regime change in Syria, they did not care if extremists took control of the post-Assad country. Such an eventuality, by the way, would have almost certainly resulted in massacres of Shiites, Christians, and Yazidis (the State Department even admits now that ISIS is engaging in genocide against these groups).

 

Further resources pertaining to the memo:

 

The DIA memo described above has existed in the public domain since May 2015, when Judicial Watch wrote thispress release.

 

If you are looking for a good way to share this info in an easily digestible format, journalist Ben Swann gave an excellent 4-minute summary of this memo and its implications.

 

General Michael Flynn, who was the head of the DIA at the time the memo was written, also corroborated this interpretation of the memo in an interview on Al Jazeera television, naming the Obama administration’s Syria policy as a “willful decision” made in spite of the intelligence revealing the true nature of the Syrian opposition. Full transcript of Flynn interview here. Keep in mind, Flynn gave this interview as the former DIA head, and not as a Trump surrogate. The interview was given 9 July 2015 which is only 23 days after Trump announced his candidacy — long before Flynn was acting as an advisor for Trump (this was first reported Feb 26, 2016).

 

Additional substantiation:

 

If it wasn’t already evident from the DIA’s intelligence assessments, it was reported in December 2012 that 29 different opposition groups had pledged fealty to Jabhat Al-Nusra, a known Al Qaeda affiliate operating in Syria.

 

Shockingly, despite the foreknowledge that the anti-Assad Syrian opposition was primarily driven by extremist factions such as Al Qaeda, Salafists, and the Muslim Brotherhood, the administration continued their assistance to the opposition. In June 2014, Obama requested $500 million to train and arm “vetted” members of the Syrian opposition, and later signed the $1.1 trillion dollar omnibus which contained this allocation.

 

Separate lines of evidence also corroborate that the Obama administration is complicit in enabling Islamist extremists in Syria, indicating that they trained, armed, and aided ISIS and other terrorist groups fighting in Syria.

 

Under scrutiny, it was also clear that the administration’s preferences were to favor ISIS over Assad’s government. You can see State spokesman Mark Toner here refusing to state that the Obama administration would prefer to see Assad’s soldiers to retake Palmyra rather than it remaining under ISIS control. The subtext here is, of course, that given a choice between rooting for Assad or for ISIS, the administration chose to root for ISIS.

 

The other DIA memo : Hillary Clinton, the CIA, and covert weapons smuggling into Syria from Benghazi

 

Hillary Clinton was always one of the biggest administration proponents of arming the Syrian opposition. Moreso even than Obama! But there was also significant resistance to such proposals from people like Senator Rand Paul. He has contended in the past that arming these factions, many of which we had no idea who they even were, would probably lead to slaughter of Christians in Syria. Unfortunately, he turned out to be correct.

 

The question is, if Clinton desired so strongly to arm the anti-Assad forces, would she have allowed herself to be stymied? Would she have limited her options to overt, legal means? Or could she have collaborated with the CIA to do so? The CIA and State Department have had a very close relationship ever since the Dulles brothers, this is a fact. And the CIA have been involved in more regime changes than you could probably count on your fingers and toes together. Here’s the other thing — we know now that there was a CIA annex in Benghazi just minutes away from Ambassador Stevens’s Consulate. Benghazi had a strong CIA presence.

 

A separate DIA memo released under FOIA by Judicial Watch sheds light on possible CIA-assisted arms smuggling of former Gaddafi weapons caches into Syria to arm the opposition. Fox News reported on it after the memo was made public in May 2015. Even back in January 2013 though, before the DIA memo was public, Rand Paul famouslyquestioned Hillary Clinton about this when she was giving testimony to the Senate under oath. While she denied any knowledge of arms shipments out of Benghazi, the DIA memo (written in October 2012) was indeed copied to the Secretary of State, indicating Hillary probably lied under oath here in order to hide the truth. Rand Paul recently reaffirmed his belief that the CIA was assisting with weapons transfers from Libya to Syria at Hillary’s request.

 

Hopefully more information regarding Hillary’s role in covert arms smuggling will be uncovered in the future.

 

The verdict:

 

ISIS would not exist but for the machinations of Obama and Hillary in Libya/Syria/Iraq.

 

Despite the warnings from their intelligence agencies, Obama and Hillary still armed/aided/trained/funded the Syrian opposition in order to topple Assad.

 

They do bear responsibility for creating ISIS. George W. Bush undoubtedly deserves blame too, for invading Iraq in the first place. Paul “Jerry” Bremer does as well for how the occupation was conducted. However, ISIS's rise was not 100% in the cards at the time Obama took office. Hillary and Obama midwifed it into existence.

 

Their policies helped ISIS expand into Eastern Syria, which in turn helped ISIS to launch offensives on Western Iraq.

 

Moreover, Obama and Hillary did the Libya regime change, another terrible idea, which is part of the ISIS story as well. Due to the poor security situation in post-Gaddafi Libya, and given that much of the country's territory was taken by radical Islamists (who comprised a large part of the Libyan rebels we backed there), post-Gaddafi Libya was a jihadist playground, and it served as a crucial nidus for the nascent Islamic State.

 

Trump’s contentions that Obama and Hillary are the “founders” of ISIS may have been a bit of an exaggeration, but it falls into the category of truthful hyperbole. There is undeniable evidence that they were willfully complicit in aiding ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria, in order to further their primary goal in the region — which was never eliminating ISIS, but rather, deposing Assad.

If anyone of you would like to fact check me for being un-objective and spinning sheet, the doc is right there in the post :)

 

Gross negligence is grounds for prosecution on Treason

[Aerion Brightflame]

The US has a history of undermining foreign regimes and having it spit on you. Look at the Iranian revolution in the 70's - You made it happen, overthrew a fairly elected pro western democratic government and instituted a anti west absolute monarchy instead. Which also lead to the Iran-Iraq war which devastated the two counties.

 

So really this is par for the course for US foreign relations. 

 

I also still don't think it winds up being grounds for gross negligence. Gross negligence is incredibly hard to prove. If a foreign intellegance agency had accessed Hilary's emails and got classified information that wouldn't have been enough to be considered gross negligence say. And Trumps initial was not truthful hyperbole - If he had said 'Obama made ISIS into what it is today' that's truthful hyperbole. Calling him the founder is wrong because the group has predated the Obama administration, even it's intentions to create an Islamic state. 

 

ISIS may not have existed, but ISI would have. It's the same organisation just with less territory. Because it's existed since the 90's. 

 

I also don't think she'll get tried for treason on this. Under any circumstance. Someone below her might be, but not her. If Bush and Cheney get away with the Iraq War then she'll get away with something as minor as arming a terrorist group to overthrow a regime. It's also not in the nations interests to try her for treason, because they'll keep doing those kinds of arm deals. 

[Wizarus]

That was a rumour about an offer made to Kasich, which was obviously denied. I don't believe there's any confirmation that he extended the same offer to Pence, or that the offer to Kasich was even legitimate. 

 

Unless there's been some development since I first raised the story. 

I don't see how it can still be considered a rumour when Kasich recently confirmed it himself.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I don't see how it can still be considered a rumour when Kasich recently confirmed it himself.

I posted what Kasich said. Now please tell me where Kasich said Trump offered him everything

[Wizarus]

I posted what Kasich said. Now please tell me where Kasich said Trump offered him everything

What? He confirmed that his aids reported to him that the Trump camp gave him a offer. He just didn't pursue it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What? He confirmed that his aids reported to him that the Trump camp gave him a offer. He just didn't pursue it.

Proof. I posted the transcript of the STOU interview, and he said no such thing about "foreign and domestic policy"

 

Nor did he say he was contacted directly, he said allegedly his aide was contacted

 

There's enough people slandering the man without people throwing this sorta crap on him without validation 

 

https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-documents/01-health-financial-records/Clinton_2015_Form_1040_with_Signature_Page.pdf

 

The Clintons donated 10 percent of their gross adjusted income to charity in 2015 and 96 percent of that went to a Clinton-owned entity, according to tax documents released Friday morning. The other four percent went to a non-profit called Desert Charities, which organizes a charity golf tournament with the Clinton Foundation. 

[Wizarus]

He said the information was accurate, the deal that was leaked matches what the aid presented to him. Now whether the aid is telling the truth can be debated, but I don't think John Kasich is keeping aids around him that will lie to him, especially about something like this.

 

Why are you bringing Clinton into it? 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

He said the information was accurate, the deal that was leaked matches what the aid presented to him. Now whether the aid is telling the truth can be debated, but I don't think John Kasich is keeping aids around him that will lie to him, especially about something like this.

 

Why are you bringing Clinton into it? 

So basically nothing has changed? An aide told the NYT this same story 2 weeks ago, and now Kasich says an aide told him the same story...and for a man so sure, why is he stressing the allegedly part?

 

I'm not, I just didn't wanna doublepost more than I had to

 

[Aerion Brightflame]

I don't see how it can still be considered a rumour when Kasich recently confirmed it himself.

 

Do you have a source on that? As in an external link that confirms it?

 

Because I've not heard about Kasich confirming it (Hence why I talked about it as being a rumour) and I'd love to read about it

[cr47t]

So basically nothing has changed? An aide told the NYT this same story 2 weeks ago, and now Kasich says an aide told him the same story...and for a man so sure, why is he stressing the allegedly part?

 

I'm not, I just didn't wanna doublepost more than I had to

 

 

While this is just ridiculous (but somewhat reflects the complaints about her), one of the most hilarious things is that it says HE in Perjury. Just wanted to point that out XD

 

Still think that when it comes to governing she's the lesser of two evils, but only by a inch or so, and the lesser of two evils would technically still be evil :P

 

I don't like either of them

 

EDIT: Also we got some VERY bad news here; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/its-alive-obama-moving-fo_b_11476328.html

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

EDIT: Also we got some VERY bad news here; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/its-alive-obama-moving-fo_b_11476328.html

He's basically going to hand the election over to Trump if he does this...

[cr47t]

He's basically going to hand the election over to Trump if he does this...

Really, I'm actually suspicious that Trump would continue to negotiate the TPP if elected, either as it currently is, or gear it so it's even worse for the middle and lower classes. (I honestly don't think Hillary would do the latter, but I do suspect her of continuing the TPP as-is if elected, too.)

 

Also; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/14/donald-trump-blames-the-media-for-his-own-failure-to-run-a-general-election-campaign/

 

It's not the media's fault that Trump isn't running a general election campaign.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Really, I'm actually suspicious that Trump would continue to negotiate the TPP if elected, either as it currently is, or gear it so it's even worse for the middle and lower classes. (I honestly don't think Hillary would do the latter, but I do suspect her of continuing the TPP as-is if elected, too.)

 

Also; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/14/donald-trump-blames-the-media-for-his-own-failure-to-run-a-general-election-campaign/

 

It's not the media's fault that Trump isn't running a general election campaign.

Well no trade-deals isn't a smart idea. But getting into a trade-deal that you cannot leave /easily/ and one that will for sure strip away more jobs...isn't smart

 

If he can argue for a better deal, I say go for it

 

Washington post already endorsed Hillary mate....surely you could find a less biased source? The media certainly isn't playing this election fair

 

Anyway we're getting 40% of Hispanics in funking NY, winning Upstate, and getting 35% of Hispanics in general

 

It's like people can't imagine that those of us who had family come here legally would be irritated at those who cut the line and demand equality...what a crazy notion

 

Gallup says there's 2% more democrats than republicans currently in the US...yet polls sample 15% more democrats...

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/

[Aerion Brightflame]

Trump doesn't exactly have a history of being for the worker. He has an extensive history of attempting to short contractors on agreed bills and then taking them to court when they refuse to pay up his new massively reduced payment offer. 

 

It was actually the story that first got him featured in the New York Times like 20 or 30 years ago I think, and he's continued with this sort of behaviour?

 

Also whether there's more or less Dem's doesn't matter than much, since Independents make up like 60% of the electorate. It's possible that the polls are people who identify as Dems but aren't members of the party due to not caring that much. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Also whether there's more or less Dem's doesn't matter than much, since Independents make up like 60% of the electorate. It's possible that the polls are people who identify as Dems but aren't members of the party due to not caring that much. 

You make it sound like gallup ignored that obvious fact. At the end of the day, the gallup data doesn't match the sampling for most of these polls

 

You decide that that means..anyway when was the last time a poll showed Brexit winning by 4%

 

It's the silent majority again Tom, why would me or anyone else openly say we're supporting Trump when we just get a bunch of buzzwords thrown at us and ostracized for doing so?

[Aerion Brightflame]

Really without the data on hand it's pretty hard to call bullshit on a poll. As most should know there's dozens of ways to screw with a poll to make it work in your favour. So it could be whatever it is. 

 

Unless Trump really increased the Republican party that much. Which is possible - the right leader can cause membership to skyrocket. Corbyn did that for Labour in the UK. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

You make it sound like gallup ignored that obvious fact. At the end of the day, the gallup data doesn't match the sampling for most of these polls

 

You decide that that means..anyway when was the last time a poll showed Brexit winning by 4%

 

It's the silent majority again Tom, why would me or anyone else openly say we're supporting Trump when we just get a bunch of buzzwords thrown at us and ostracized for doing so?

Dude just saying often Bernie supporters are called out as "Dumb liberal kids who don't know what they're talking about and blah blah socialism is evil"

And Hilary supporters are constantly attacked for "supporting a criminal" "Only voting her because she's a woman" etc etc.

Making one's side into the one and only victim just isn't right.

[cr47t]

EDIT: I also agree with Cowcow on this; please, Winter, don't victimize a single side and just that single side.

 

Washington post already endorsed Hillary mate....surely you could find a less biased source? The media certainly isn't playing this election fair

Well, where AM I supposed to go? There aren't that many (reliable) options that I know. I mainly use WP out of habit

 

With that said...

 

 

This is why I don't check CNN for polls -- FiveThirtyEight is where I would go to for that

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

EDIT: I also agree with Cowcow on this; please, Winter, don't victimize a single side and just that single side.

 

 

Well, where AM I supposed to go? There aren't that many (reliable) options that I know. I mainly use WP out of habit

 

With that said...

 

 

This is why I don't check CNN for polls -- FiveThirtyEight is where I would go to for that

Chicago Tribune is pretty fair

 

 

 

Go to the center..I read WSJ, you should probs read USA today

Dude just saying often Bernie supporters are called out as "Dumb liberal kids who don't know what they're talking about and blah blah socialism is evil"

And Hilary supporters are constantly attacked for "supporting a criminal" "Only voting her because she's a woman" etc etc.

Making one's side into the one and only victim just isn't right.

You don't beat up in college for supporting Hillary or Bernie cause those are the socially "right" choices. The hatred towards Trump supporters far exceeds anything idiots who don't know what socialism is threw on Bernie peeps

[cr47t]

Chicago Tribune is pretty fair

 

 

 

Go to the center..I read WSJ, you should probs read USA today

Ok, I will if I remember to (and if it even turns up.)

 

Also; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/donald-trump-damage_b_11402038.html

I don't think you would want some of these things, if ANY of these things, happening, Winter. (And that goes to the rest of you YCM folks)

[Aerion Brightflame]

In fairness I don't think most of the US really understands what socialism is and what it does for them. 

 

Socialism is essentially a buzzword meant to be associated with communism and the Russians when in reality every functioning society has a least a bit of socialism because capitalism does not work for a lot of needed public services. 

 

In fact socialism and capitalism are fantastic bed-fellows because it allows for a flexible worker base that can take risks without risking starvation. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Ok, I will if I remember to (and if it even turns up.)

 

Also; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/donald-trump-damage_b_11402038.html

I don't think you would want some of these things, if ANY of these things, happening, Winter. (And that goes to the rest of you YCM folks)

Let's see

1) Might happen, don't really care either way. 

 

2) Could happen, more likely is just him setting up a war between Iran and Daesh and letting them fight each other

 

3) Is feeding you a notion, the media is rarely objective nowdays, and yes, I can find you numerous times where even they admit that. So yeah, I want libel laws cracked up an bit to clean up stories like the frontpage baby-gate scandel

 

4) & 5) are grounds for impeachment if proved

 

6) Needs to happen

 

7) Can counter sue using 14th amendment...unless you're suggesting president Trump will pull a Andrew Jackson

 

8) Unlikely given BLM, public outcry would be too large

 

9) Excellent

 

10) Complications under 1st amendment. It would have to be broader to do legally 

 

11) read 7

 

12) good

 

13) good

 

14) good for the economy, but doubt it'll be that drastic

 

15) good

 

16) About time @Crimea

 

17) Can't happen soon enough

 

18) unlikely, more just making them financially account for services

 

19)  would worry me if he actually said anything like this

 

1) worries me because not a fan of citizen's united, but thankfully neither is Trump, makes me happy cause abortion is murder, makes me worried cause LGBT, makes me happy cause libel and slander laws-split, better than RBG tho

 

2) already explained why this is economically sound

 

3) Has said he won't do this

 

4) Could happen, but not a top concern for me

 

5) Planned Parenthood is complicit in murder, if abortions are really just 2% of their projects, it can't be that much of a loss not to do

 

6) He's said he supports nuclear energy...so invalid

 

7) Yet, he would put back Glass-Steagal? Remove the less restrict law and put the more restrictive one back...#logic

 

Yeh I'm ok with MOST of them

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

It'd be hard to really be sure which side gets it "worse" or "better" tbh and I don't think it really should be a thing one attempts to prove given the many differences when it comes to area and personal experience and such.