US Trump Administration Discussion Thread

[Aerion Brightflame]

Except we still haven't seen the returns; We can't testify to nothing being in there without seeing them. It can't be as simple as tax dodging because he admitted to that. So clearly something was there to given him a reason to dismiss a practice that has been in place since what, Nixon? There's still no clear reason as to why we have not seen them?

 

Why is Commey dropping the investigation 2 days before the election after making absolutely no new discoveries more bullshit than him announcing a reopening of the investigation, against protocol a week before the election, and before any assessment as to whether any new pertinant information is present? Given that if it was established to have nothing in there at that point, why would the investigation need to be carried onwards?

 

And why, even if we can presume it to be the case, is the RNC's dirty laundary not worth seeing like the DNC's was? If the point is the educated the average American into the inner goings over US politics; Only doing such for one party is not doing that in my eyes.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'll address your claim that I'm pushing conspiracies, as bolded above.

 

I am mainly accusing except actual Russian-based groups or associates for circulating the fake news. I'm not accusing you, Winter, or anyone else on this forum, and I highly doubt any currently active member of this forum has ties to the Kremlin. I'm not trying to label anyone on this forum a communist or part of some Russian conspiracy to hand over the election to their preferred candidate (despite me believing the russians did promote fake news to influence the election.) I will also admit not all the fake news was from Russia -- some of it even came from the US (mainly talking about you, Breitbart). But the fact that a foreign power tried to influence one of our elections should raise alarm bells.

 

As for point 2, I would like to hear what you have to say about that -- you were able to answer point 4.

It's not hard to set up a proxy in Russia and have fake news ping there you know. You could easily have some guy in Florida be sending things through a Russian server and then covering his tracks

 

No doubt Russia Today and Sputnik often gave Trump favorable coverage though. That I won't deny. I just doubt that this "fake new" scandal really turned the election. Again, remember the Liberal medias promises about Obamacare that all turned out to be false? Is that fake news?

 

They said Trump alleging Hillary wanted open borders was a lie. Right up till we got the wikileaks which confirmed that suspicion 

 

They have no credibility left. None

 

As for point 2, I disagree

 

This is virginia: "Photo ID Required to Vote. Virginia law requires all voters to provide an acceptable form of photo identification (photo ID) when voting in person at their polling place. ... Valid Virginia Driver's License or Identification Card. Valid Virginia DMV issued Veteran's ID card"

 

That's not asking too much man

[Tentacruel]

So voter fraud is real now?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So voter fraud is real now?

It might be in some of the big dem states

 

There was also likely some skulduggery in Arlington, Virginia

 

NOVA funked Trump this time, HRC did about 4% than Obama, and Trump did about 10% worse than Romney. His gains in the south didn't offset it. White women clutched their pearls too tightly in DC suburbs

[vla1ne]

So voter fraud is real now?

well, we know already that it's happened more than once this election. so it's definitely plausible. and even factoring identity politics and the like, it is by far the largest problem in this, or any election because each successful fraud attempt effectively nulls a vote for the opposition at no cost to the one benefiting.

 

also, not sure if it's been brought up just yet, but is anybody else extremely suspicious of the events surrounding jill steins request for a recount in the states trump won? such as how she, who could barely get over 3 million over the course of the election, and only garnered just above 1% of the overall vote, managed to put up 0ver 4 million in barely two days, how somehow, she was pretty much ignored the entire election by the media, but now has amazing coverage all over the news, how the states she wants recounts in were all trump-won states(some of which having higher margins of victory by almost double, than some of the clinton won states), how the clintons are so interested in "fair and balanced" recount (remember what happened to bernie in California with that recount) and much more. the entire hing is too clean on the surface to not be dirty under the top layer.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

How about we tackle American fake news first. Like democrat sponsored polls that showed Hillary winning 28% of GOP votes

 

Public Polling can really suppress turnout. Or how about we talk about the fake news that Voter ID laws are racist. Or the fake news of women coming out of the woodwork to accuse a billionaire of assault 30 years after the fact, and in some cases, after, as recently as 3 months ago, praising the man.

 

No Crt, to quote president Obama, the 80's want their foreign policy back. Enough with the neo-McCarthyism 

Can I just say you really love to deflect things with "Let's tackle this issue first". It's possible to do both at once and acknowledging one is not denying the other.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Can I just say you really love to deflect things with "Let's tackle this issue first". It's possible to do both at once and acknowledging one is not denying the other.

Well you tend to tackle the pressing matter first...which is our domestic media lying to us

 

Bank Regulation

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2016/161123_gs_replace_doddfrank.html

[Aerion Brightflame]

also, not sure if it's been brought up just yet, but is anybody else extremely suspicious of the events surrounding jill steins request for a recount in the states trump won? such as how she, who could barely get over 3 million over the course of the election, and only garnered just above 1% of the overall vote, managed to put up 0ver 4 million in barely two days, how somehow, she was pretty much ignored the entire election by the media, but now has amazing coverage all over the news, how the states she wants recounts in were all trump-won states(some of which having higher margins of victory by almost double, than some of the clinton won states), how the clintons are so interested in "fair and balanced" recount (remember what happened to bernie in California with that recount) and much more. the entire hing is too clean on the surface to not be dirty under the top layer.

 

The media collusion is bound to be dirty, but I don't think the vote count increasing so much so fast is. The US has what, 320 million people living in it? I could believe you'd find 5 million people who'd be willing to give a dollar. I imagine that the money didn't come from just that however (Given the averagedonation was 42$ according to the Guardian), and that a big chunk at the start came from political money, which then increased a lot after getting public coverage.

 

Marc Elias, the general counsel to Hillary's campaign made a post recently regarding this, where he talks about how the Clinton campaign had investiated this sort of thing independantly as the election ended, and had decided not to pursue there own investigation. But because of said initial investigations they feel obligied to stand behind the recount campaign. https://medium.com/@marceelias/listening-and-responding-to-calls-for-an-audit-and-recount-2a904717ea39#.t228ex2wu

 

The actual 'My campaign lost so I'm standing for a recount in the states where we happened to lose by small margins' is fairly in line with the rest of the election honestly. It's incredibly self serving and casts unnessicary doubt on the democratic process but if it means they can win they'll do it. Just as I'm sure if Trump lost he'd claim voter fraud in states he lost in (Technically he's doing that anyway with claims that he won the popular vote if you disregard the millions of illegals who voted).

 

It's sad, but it's more a testiment to how sheet politics is than anything else.

 

I will laugh my head off if the recount reveals that Trump actually won by a significantly bigger margin in these states.

[vla1ne]

The media collusion is bound to be dirty, but I don't think the vote count increasing so much so fast is. The US has what, 320 million people living in it? I could believe you'd find 5 million people who'd be willing to give a dollar. I imagine that the money didn't come from just that however (Given the averagedonation was 42$ according to the Guardian), and that a big chunk at the start came from political money, which then increased a lot after getting public coverage.

 

Marc Elias, the general counsel to Hillary's campaign made a post recently regarding this, where he talks about how the Clinton campaign had investiated this sort of thing independantly as the election ended, and had decided not to pursue there own investigation. But because of said initial investigations they feel obligied to stand behind the recount campaign. https://medium.com/@marceelias[email protected]<script data-cfhash='f9e31' type="text/javascript">/* */</script>717ea39#.t228ex2wu

 

The actual 'My campaign lost so I'm standing for a recount in the states where we happened to lose by small margins' is fairly in line with the rest of the election honestly. It's incredibly self serving and casts unnessicary doubt on the democratic process but if it means they can win they'll do it. Just as I'm sure if Trump lost he'd claim voter fraud in states he lost in (Technically he's doing that anyway with claims that he won the popular vote if you disregard the millions of illegals who voted).

 

It's sad, but it's more a testiment to how s*** politics is than anything else.

 

I will laugh my head off if the recount reveals that Trump actually won by a significantly bigger margin in these states.

but my issue is that fraud is still possible, and the recount itself is being requested by somebody who has literally no logical reason to ask for one, aside from getting money. we saw a scenario almost exactly like this earlier in the election when hillary was running against sanders, and in tat case, the votes were literally thrown out. and i'm somewhat concerned this could be a repeat of that to some degree. trump's got a damn good reason to suspect fraud, clinton does not, and stein has literally no reason to be involved at this point aside from getting money from big corporations. this is the second time she's raised the ceiling on the amount of money she' asked for, and somehow it's still pouring in. there's just too much stuff going on here.

 

the end result was declared, and the two most affected stood down, and now al of a sudden we get this last minute demand for a recount? 

[Tentacruel]

America had better pray this doesn't end in a reversal of the result.  You wanna see some funking riots...

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

America had better pray this doesn't end in a reversal of the result.  You wanna see some funking riots...

Pennsylvania State Department says Stein missed recount deadline

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pennsylvania-state-department-says-stein-missed-recount-deadline/article/2608305?custom_click=rss

 

It's over

[cr47t]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-meet-with-petraeus-romney-as-secretary-of-state-battle-heats-up/2016/11/28/4bdf7538-b584-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html
 

President-elect Donald Trump met Monday with retired Army Gen. David Petraeus, a possible alternative choice for secretary of state amid an escalating feud over the position between supporters of former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who will sit down with Trump on Tuesday.
 
...
 
The general is one of the most influential military officers of his generation but ended his government career as director of the CIA in November 2012 amid revelations that he had an affair with his biographer.
 
Petraeus pleaded guilty in April 2015 to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information in connection with the scandal — namely sharing information with biographer Paula Broadwell — and was sentenced to probation and a $100,000 fine. He could face a tough Senate confirmation process because of that history, though he has since testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee as a foreign policy expert.

I don't think many of you would want this guy being our top diplomat

 

EDIT; https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-will-give-you-everything-here-are-282-of-donald-trumps-campaign-promises/2016/11/24/01160678-b0f9-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html

 

282 item list of campaign promises by Trump

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-meet-with-petraeus-romney-as-secretary-of-state-battle-heats-up/2016/11/28/4bdf7538-b584-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html

 

 

I don't think many of you would want this guy being our top diplomat

Agreed. 

 

https://www.predictit.org/Market/2383/Who-will-be-Secretary-of-State-on-Jan-31%2c-2017

 

Then again not happy with any of my choices

 

Romney is an anti-Russian Trump hater

 

Giuliani was a war hawk and better for some type of intelligence or police head

 

Corker, as much as I like him, was for the Iran deal, which has been enforced awfully

 

Bolton is male HRC

 

Rep Tulsi is my ideal choice

 

Michigan certifies results: Trump 2,279,543 (47.5%), Clinton 2,268,839 (47.3%), Others 250,902 (5.2%).

 

Utah certifies its results: Trump 515,231 (45.5%), Clinton 310,676 (27.5%), Others 305,523 (27.0%). Trump's weakest winning % in U.S.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-28/paul-manafort-is-back

 

Whoa...that's a plot twist I didn't see coming. Thought the Rust Belt idea was Bannon's

 

Confirmed: Trump selected Georgia U.S. Rep. Tom Price, a strong critic of Obamacare, for secretary of health and human services, I'm told. In 2015, Price proposed a bill to replace Obamacare with tax credits, health savings accounts, new malpractice laws

 

Tom Price, 62, is an orthopedic surgeon from Georgia, and chairman of the House Budget Committee since 2015.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/2016/11/17/late-deciders-loomed-large-trump-wisconsin-win/94021250/

 

Trump did better in Dem areas of WI, but worse in GOP relative to Romney

 

More proof that a Trumpian Candidate with better relations to affluent whites would have an electoral landslide

[Sunshine Jesse]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803567993036754944

Is this man just trolling at this point???

 

This is flat-out terrifying, what the funk.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803567993036754944

 

Is this man just trolling at this point???

 

This is flat-out terrifying, what the funk.

 

Well, five years is enough time for him to change his mind I guess.

 

https://twitter.com/adamsmoot/status/803589842403790848

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803567993036754944

 

Is this man just trolling at this point???

 

This is flat-out terrifying, what the funk.

Either way, he's wrong. It's a form of free speech, no matter how shitty

 

One reason it's so wrong to burn an American flag is that it stands for a country where you are free to burn the flag.

 

Trump's Health Sec's plan to replace Obamacare

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/heres-how-trumps-hhs-pick-wants-to-replace-obamacare/article/2608349

[Tentacruel]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803567993036754944

 

Is this man just trolling at this point???

 

This is flat-out terrifying, what the funk.

Let's hope he's just trolling.  

 

That being said burning the flag is really dumb.  I feel the same way about flying a confederate flag.  

 

Neither would justify a year in jail. 

[cr47t]

On this subject;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/29/donald-trumps-position-on-flag-burning-isnt-really-all-that-controversial/
 

Donald Trump would appear to have done something very controversial (again) on Twitter Tuesday morning, registering his support for making flag-burning a crime punishable by as much as a year in jail or even the revoking of one's citizenship.

As our Philip Bump notes, it's not the first time Trump has pitted himself against things that have been defined by the Supreme Court as First Amendment rights — nor will it likely be the last. And as Bump also notes, Trump's decision to stand against flag-burning is likely to pit defenders of the practice “against the patriotism of people who find flag-burning unacceptable.”

But the size of that latter group might be bigger than the coverage of this topic suggests. And Trump's position probably won't strike most Americans as being all that controversial.

In fact, making flag-burning illegal appears to have had overwhelming public support as recently as a decade ago. It's controversial to attach such harsh penalties to it, and the fact it would require a constitutional amendment makes it a steeper climb, yes. But Trump's basic position is one that appears to have base-level appeal to a huge cross-section of Americans — no matter what the Supreme Court ruled about flag-burning in 1989.

...

Trump unpacked all kinds of constitutional issues when he brought up the idea of making flag-burning illegal. And, revoking the citizenship of offenders triggers a whole other constitutional debate — all of which is completely valid to debate.

But his basic position on whether flag-burning should be illegal is really no more controversial than believing Roe v. Wade or Citizens United should be overturned — or that any other Supreme Court decision was wrongly decided and should be reversed or amended.

Wat do you guys all think about this?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I agree 100%

[cr47t]

I agree 100%

Wait, with whom? I'm confused.

[Aerion Brightflame]

It's a piece of fabric.

 

The only thing you damage by burning a flag is your wallet, because you generally burn your own flags. Burning somebody elses flag is a different matter; it's vandalism. Unless you are an idiot, let it get out of control and let your house burn down in the process.

 

Any symbollic merit a flag has, i.e 'all the veterans who bled beneath that flag' is generally outweighed in my mind by the fact that they also died to preserve ones liberty and freedom, and thus instrinsiclly the right for one to burn ones own flag. It is a form of free speech, albiet a more self descrutive and arguably petty one, thus one should have the ability to do it, just as others have the freedom to tell others to f*** off for disrepecting the nation.

 

Admittedly American views of flags are siginificantly different to my own because almost nobody flies a british flag (Or english, welsh, scottish ect ect one) unless the rugby or the football is on. And even then it's in the minority.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803567993036754944

 

Is this man just trolling at this point???

 

This is flat-out terrifying, what the funk.

Can we talk about how lit all the responses to this are?

[Tentacruel]

Bullshit. 

 

People don't burn the American flag because it's a piece of cloth and they need to stay warm in the winter.  People do it to convey a statement.

 

If I burned a gay pride flag, would that not mean something?  It's just a piece of cloth, but I would be rightly viewed as a homophobic douchebag, because unless I had no idea what it was that's probably what I'd be trying to convey.

 

People who burn American flags are intentionally trying to piss people off.  To ignore the sentiment behind it is disingenuous.

[epicmemesbro]

I suppose there could be a correlation between flag burning and a riot being created, but other than that assumption I see no reason for any form of legal action to be taken against people who burn the US flag. Even then I don't think yielding for a person in power to outlaw acts they find offensive is acceptable, it can be a slippery slope with banning flag burning.

This flag burning debacle could be a distraction for a more "concerning" occurrence happening in the sidelines, similar to the Hamilton fiasco.

 

 

 

Wait, with whom? I'm confused.

With the knowledge I posses, I believe with up-most certainty that Winter was referring to Donald J. Trump.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Doing something in protest/to make a statement is not necessarily the same as doing it "to piss people off". And burning a gay pride flag is super legal, and should be, despite being shitty to do.