US Trump Administration Discussion Thread

[vla1ne]

 

---

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/07/us-steel-wants-to-accelerate-investments-bring-back-jobs-ceo-says.html

 

US steel wants to return to the US in anticipation of Trump's infrastructure plans.They think Trump will spend tons on infrastructure and raise tariffs against the Chinese.

 

---

 

Question for the day, is Socialized medicine a far left economic or social proposal (or both)?

 

---

 

Bone I've been wanting to pick with fact-checkers

 

Take for example the time Trump's line that "Hillary wants to have open borders" was rated "mostly false": normally I would call that an exaggeration: HRC moved closer to open borders than any Dem nominee before her, but wasn't all the way there. But at that moment HILLARY HAD LITERALLY JUST HAD A PRIVATE SPEECH LEAKED WHERE SHE SAID SHE FAVORED OPEN BORDERS!!!!!

 

Hillary's speech: "I dream of open borders." Trump: "She wants open borders." Politifact: "He's lying."

 

well, if he really is planning to build any portion of that wall, US steel, among many other companies, will have a lot of jobs on the border for the next four years guaranteed

 

---

stealing your line thing because it works.

 

both. and that's not necessarily a bad thing. the bad part is that compromise is something that's been feared in congress for an insanely long time, and that will get any medical plan nowhere on the floor and off the blueprints, because without constructive input from opposing sides, you will never have a perfect system, i mean, who better to point out the flaws in your system, than the person who doesn't like your system but respects you enough (or cares enough about america) to help make it work.

 

---

 

that's a common trait among many fact checkers, it's nothing new, but at the same time, the real issue should likely be that "mostly false" was used on a question that was so clearly black and white. hillary, even before said hidden speech, was relatively in favor of open borders, but she's flipped so much on many of her topics over the last decade or so, that i can see why they didn't go all in on their false rating.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Oregon certifies its results: Clinton 1,002,106 (50.1%), Trump 782,403 (39.1%), Others 216,827 (10.8%).

Maryland certifies its results: Clinton 1,677,928 (60.3%), Trump 943,169 (33.9%), Others 160,349 (5.8%).

Montana certifies its results: Trump 279,240 (56.2%), Clinton 177,709 (35.7%), Others 40,198 (8.1%).

 

Recount in Michigan Ended. There is apparently potentially massive fraud in Detroit, so Michigan passed a pretty strict voter ID law today. But included provision for free ID for people who were in the poverty zone

 

WI recount Day 9 results: 83.43% complete. Net changes in ballots: 1254, 0.0511% of total thus far. Net change in lead: Trump +3

 

Net changes of count, with original lead Trump +22,617: Trump +553 Clinton +550 Johnson +65 Stein +62

 

 

well, if he really is planning to build any portion of that wall, US steel, among many other companies, will have a lot of jobs on the border for the next four years guaranteed

 

---

stealing your line thing because it works.

 

both. and that's not necessarily a bad thing. the bad part is that compromise is something that's been feared in congress for an insanely long time, and that will get any medical plan nowhere on the floor and off the blueprints, because without constructive input from opposing sides, you will never have a perfect system, i mean, who better to point out the flaws in your system, than the person who doesn't like your system but respects you enough (or cares enough about america) to help make it work.

 

---

 

that's a common trait among many fact checkers, it's nothing new, but at the same time, the real issue should likely be that "mostly false" was used on a question that was so clearly black and white. hillary, even before said hidden speech, was relatively in favor of open borders, but she's flipped so much on many of her topics over the last decade or so, that i can see why they didn't go all in on their false rating.

 

Not only that, a 1 Trillion dollar infrastructure plan would dwarf what Obama did in '08. If they're careful to avoid the logrolling and bureaucratic waste that was there in '08 we could have jobs all over the country for years. It's not sustainable, as I've mentioned, but it will put money in the pockets of those workers ideally until they can retire. 

 

Millennials on the other hand have to realize that we have no future in coal mining and steel working

 

---

 

It's not a bad thing, but we need to realize that we have a positive inflation rate, and need to accordingly invest money in secure profiles to grow the money put into these programs. Single payer alone is just trying to hide the systemic problem, which is, as it stands SS is a losing investment. The gov needs to do a mixture of privatization and nationalization to fix SS. Privatize in that we need to invest in things outside of mostly government bonds, but nationalize in that the government should strictly look over the investment instead of having individuals do it.

 

---

 

 

Pt being they were solidly in the tank for HRC

 

---

 

House GOP passed a SS cut today, both President Obama and President-Elect Trump said they would veto...so not sure what the end goal there is

 

 

---

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?tid=ss_tw-bottom&utm_term=.38e79b775b4c

 

CIA now saying Russia wanted Trump to win.

 

"The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered. For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees"

 

I'm sure the senate loves it, GOP war hawks get a second crack at the war with Russia that they lost out when HRC lost

Dem senators get to de-legitimize the President Elect

 

 

The president elect's response was the correct one. These are the same people who planned the Iraq war from the 70's and have done much to instill turmoil in the world where it did not exist.

 

 

 

 

[Phantom Roxas]

He didn't actually refute it, though. Besides, it's not like Russia was alone in claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Didn't he also have a problem with Bush making the claim, too?

Also… https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/trump-on-there-being-zero-proof-he-opposed-iraq-before-the-w?utm_term=.ppenZbA02z#.cv8v7maepb

 

Yes, it's BuzzFeed, but they're citing an actual book from Trump, so that's enough for me.

 

Saddam Hussein wouldn’t let UN weapons inspectors examine certain sites where that material might be stored. The result when our bombing was over? We still don’t know what Iraq is up to or whether it has the material to build nuclear weapons. I’m no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don’t, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us.

So Trump himself seems to have supported such claims, or at least wasn't so ready to dismiss them. The message really seems to mean "There's nothing to see here, stop pointing this out." He's concerned with the claims that Russia influenced the election not because he wants people to spread something that isn't true, but because it is true and he just doesn't want people to know it. It seems that he was also heavily supportive of the Iraq War. So Democratic senators don't have to make any extra effort to delegitimize Trump when Trump just does these things to himself. Though I suppose "Pointing out that you did something wrong" counts as some evil conspiracy theory.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

He didn't actually refute it, though. Besides, it's not like Russia was alone in claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Didn't he also have a problem with Bush making the claim, too?

 

Also… https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/trump-on-there-being-zero-proof-he-opposed-iraq-before-the-w?utm_term=.ppenZbA02z#.cv8v7maepb

 

Yes, it's BuzzFeed, but they're citing an actual book from Trump, so that's enough for me.

 

So Trump himself seems to have supported such claims, or at least wasn't so ready to dismiss them. The message really seems to mean "There's nothing to see here, stop pointing this out." He's concerned with the claims that Russia influenced the election not because he wants people to spread something that isn't true, but because it is true and he just doesn't want people to know it. It seems that he was also heavily supportive of the Iraq War. So Democratic senators don't have to make any extra effort to delegitimize Trump when Trump just does these things to himself. Though I suppose "Pointing out that you did something wrong" counts as some evil conspiracy theory.

I think the point he was making is the CIA hasn't exactly had a stellar record as of recently. The President and the senate knew of this information for a while now

 

My theory is simple. Trump's current top pick for SoS is another pro-Russian individual, this would force him to make a Romney pick or suffer an approval drop

 

It's not just the dems, I'd honestly argue that Russian Hawks in the GOP would love to see Trump impeached and pence as president. 

 

Trump's position on the Iraq war is honestly a pain to sift through. He doesn't like it on Hannity in '03. Says I guess so on Stern later that year. Comes out against it in '04 etc.

 

It just goes back to the point that all we have is an anon source from the CIA saying Russia wanted to help Trump. That's no more credible than anon FBI agents saying HRC should have been convicted and that the DoJ was forcing Comey's hand

 

---

 

Please...HRC called him a Russian puppet spreading propaganda on the debate stage in front of millions. This is a shitty attempt to force his hand on SoS and put the Romney in. I'd almost wish that you guys actually got your wish with him being impeached, but that would mean I'd have to deal with pence for four years, and that's not worth the schadenfreude

 

 

None of y'all realize what a bless you've gotten in a centrist dem/rep who wants to protect entitlement while copying a lot of Obama's economics. The more you root against him, the better chance you have of putting a potential gay hater who's a rubber stamp on Ryan in office. 

 

---

 

Wow, that 7 pt swing in Pittsburgh is rough. She didn't keep any of it's suburbs, if US Steel is serious about moving back with repatriation, she might lose that western stronghold in 2020

 

---

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/dec/07/winning-democrats/no-trumps-health-secretary-pick-tom-price-doesnt-w/

 

This is good news, had me worried for a bit

 

---

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_sWvU6EQY0

 

I'm not a deficit hawk, but Trump keeping a balanced budget is smart. Because senate cannot filibuster a reconciliation bill if the budget is balanced. This gives Trump and GOP enormous leverage in passing things like the wall and lowering taxes

 

I worry about Ryan on Social Sec, but he's affirmed that it won't change for seniors, I never really expected it to remain unchanged for me

 

One good thing with repatriation is he's affirming that they'll reinvest, which is the fix to SSE that I was talking about. Good on Trump/GOP for picking that up. Overall it's shaping up pretty well IMO

 

---

 

I'd have to find the piece again, but a very prominent, and /formerly/ anti-gay evangelical leader was telling his folks to move on w/ regards to SSM and focus on abortion. 

 

Love wins

[Dad]

So you're gonna sit up here and tell me emails on a shitty server were a threat to the United States security, but Russia interfering with the election of the President is "no big deal"?  Personally none of this will effect me, but you're still full of it.

[Sunshine Jesse]

For what it's worth, no conclusive statements have been made minus the ones on the DNC hacks, so it's pretty meaningless until an actual investigation happens.

 

The DNC hacks could also be argued as a good thing if you've drank enough of the Cult of Trump Kool-Aid.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So you're gonna sit up here and tell me emails on a shitty server were a threat to the United States security, but Russia interfering with the election of the President is "no big deal"?  Personally none of this will effect me, but you're still full of it.

Oh no, "Russia" released real emails of Hillary lying to the public

 

If you weren't pissed about the illegal leaking for the Hollywood tape or the Trump tax returns, don't get worked up about this

[Sunshine Jesse]

One is a matter of national security and the other is a matter of personal security.

 

That's a pretty important difference.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

One is a matter of national security and the other is a matter of personal security.

 

That's a pretty important difference.

So you're fine with HRC lying to the public about what she really thinks? You fine with her taking more money than any of us will see in life from Islamic monarchies?

 

This is honestly silly, people want to be uniformed, just because they don't like the source.

 

And the FBI is saying there is no evidence that Russia helped Trump, and Wikileaks is going a step further to say Russia was NOT the source.

 

It's all a bit of gaslighting to delegitimize our next President on part of Never Trump Republicans and Democrats

 

---

 

China steals billions from us in intellectual technology each year, but Trump is the first person to aggressively call their sheet out on that. Where were these "patriots" when that happened?

 

To quote my president

 

 

---

 

Just to summarize 

 

The Democrats are claiming that the Russians rigged the election by exposing what Democrats really think? You can't make this up.

[Sunshine Jesse]

So you're fine with HRC lying to the public about what she really thinks? You fine with her taking more money than any of us will see in life from Islamic monarchies?

 

nope

 

This doesn't really mean anything unless there's proof that there was active collusion between Trump and Russia.

 

Incentive is also important. For all I know, they could've done it to try to avoid armed conflict since we all know how Hillary is. It's a national security issue that requires investigation either way.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Just to summarize 

 

The Democrats are claiming that the Russians rigged the election by exposing what Democrats really think? You can't make this up.

This is an absolutely shitty and biased summary.

Like really man, "what Democrats really think?" as if it was every Democrat.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This is an absolutely shitty and biased summary.

Like really man, "what Democrats really think?" as if it was every Democrat.

This is the narrative that elected Democrats, likely voted into office by Democrats, are pushing in congress. Do you disagree with your representative? 

 

 

nope

 

This doesn't really mean anything unless there's proof that there was active collusion between Trump and Russia.

 

Incentive is also important. For all I know, they could've done it to try to avoid armed conflict since we all know how Hillary is. It's a national security issue that requires investigation either way.

I'm fine with an investigation, but innocent until proven guilty is important 

[Dad]

This is the narrative that elected Democrats, likely voted into office by Democrats, are pushing in congress. Do you disagree with your representative? 

 

 

I'm fine with an investigation, but innocent until proven guilty is important 

 

You're suggesting that today's dems are most likely all anti-Russian.  You're also suggesting Clinton lying is more dangerous than a foreign nation putting their hands in our systems.

 

You might not be as smart as Trump, but you're just as dangerous.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

China flies nuclear bomber over South China Sea to 'send a message' to Donald Trump

 

​Unacceptable...we've gotten so weak

[Dad]

China flies nuclear bomber over South China Sea to 'send a message' to Donald Trump

 

​Unacceptable...we've gotten so weak

 

Better spies to give us information weeks ahead of time so we know China's every move, right?  Must be the CIA's fault.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Better spies to give us information weeks ahead of time so we know China's every move, right?  Must be the CIA's fault.

We shouldn't cave to them or be intimidated by China is the point

 

 

Turns out Trump broke the Democrat Stronghold of Pueblo County in Colorado (55.4% Obama, 42.3% Romney), lost the state due to poor showings in affluent white places

 

37.97% of the population were Hispanic or Latino...real potential there for Trump in 2020

[Dad]

We shouldn't cave to them or be intimidated by China is the point

 

 

Turns out Trump broke the Democrat Stronghold of Pueblo County in Colorado (55.4% Obama, 42.3% Romney), lost the state due to poor showings in affluent white places

 

37.97% of the population were Hispanic or Latino...real potential there for Trump in 2020

 

This doesn't indicate intimidation.  It indicates lack of preparation.  We should've known about this.  Intelligence failed.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

Really Neat Time lapse of Election Day

This doesn't indicate intimidation.  It indicates lack of preparation.  We should've known about this.  Intelligence failed.

We've known about it for ages, they've been flying bombers over the SCS for a while now to poke at Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea

 

This the first time they tried to intimidate the Americans over it

 

---

 

[Dad]

The FBI said the same thing for the longest until they support by DNC.  As usual it's up to some bogus review that needs to go public, if it even exists.

 

---

 

RE: China.  Mr. Elect said he would be a hardass on China.  These are exactly the intelligence meetings he needs to be attending that he suddenly deems himself too intelligent for.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The FBI said the same thing for the longest until they support by DNC.  As usual it's up to some bogus review that needs to go public, if it even exists.

 

---

 

RE: China.  Mr. Elect said he would be a hardass on China.  These are exactly the intelligence meetings he needs to be attending that he suddenly deems himself too intelligent for.

Maybe, but the IC seems very intent on pushing him towards being a hardass on Russia, while appeasing China

[Aerion Brightflame]

Anonymous sources don't discredit a newspaper article; especially when talking about high level sheet like this. People can lose there jobs going on record saying the wrong things. Being able to maintain anonymity is thus an important way to allow the truth to be made public without the risks of being a whiltsleblower. And we know how the states treat them now don't we.

 

The article being overall that vague is a bad thing, but the sources themselves remaining hidden is not bad.

 

I would also not be inclinced to trust the word of wikileaks and the FBI over the CIA per say, because both have the various stuff they did in the election in Trump's favour. In short, you can trust nobody, about anything to with this sheet.

 

Trump's comments about the intellegence briefings confuse me when it comes to what I should think about it. On the one hand, he's right, if the intellegence isn't changing, there's no need for him to have the briefings repeatedly. On the other, one would imagine that something relevant would happen and change in the world everyday, and that he could just have the meetings everyday, ask 'Anything different?' and if not tell them to bugger off. It's both sensible and really really stupid.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Tillerson was apparently recommended by CoS James Baker, Sec. Rice and Collin Powell

Hardly Kremlin stooge material. Apparently Trump is nervous about picking him.

1) It'll be a great blow to my faith in him if he caves to pressure. China and such will pressure him too. He cannot always cave
2) People like Sen. McCain are why we need Term Limits

 

Anonymous sources don't discredit a newspaper article; especially when talking about high level sheet like this. People can lose there jobs going on record saying the wrong things. Being able to maintain anonymity is thus an important way to allow the truth to be made public without the risks of being a whiltsleblower. And we know how the states treat them now don't we.

The article being overall that vague is a bad thing, but the sources themselves remaining hidden is not bad.

I would also not be inclinced to trust the word of wikileaks and the FBI over the CIA per say, because both have the various stuff they did in the election in Trump's favour. In short, you can trust nobody, about anything to with this sheet.

Trump's comments about the intellegence briefings confuse me when it comes to what I should think about it. On the one hand, he's right, if the intellegence isn't changing, there's no need for him to have the briefings repeatedly. On the other, one would imagine that something relevant would happen and change in the world everyday, and that he could just have the meetings everyday, ask 'Anything different?' and if not tell them to bugger off. It's both sensible and really really stupid.

That's single handedly tarnishing both the Wikileaks 10 year record and the FBI in favor of a belligerent agency that has repeatedly gotten America into war. I'll reserve final judgment, but I'm def not Team CIA atm.

If Trump keeps at it with China he'll have new material to cover everyday ;)

 

---

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/11/politics/russia-hacking-conclusions-donald-trump/index.html

 

Officials familiar with briefings given to Congress say CIA assessment "wasn't as definitive as has been portrayed."

 

Oh

[senorchavez]

The thing that concerns me about the Russian hacking incident is, where's the evidence. Imean it's fine for the sources to be anonymous because allegations if this magnitude are concerning, but there appears be zero objectivity in their claims. If they know for a fact that Russia was involved in the Podesta WikiLeaks then why not show us the facts? There is no tangible evidence to look at and say "Huh, guess Russia was involved with the emails," and if there is, why withhold it? No specific building like they did with China, no packets, nothing. Are we supposed to just take their word for it and move on? What have they to gain from that?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Delegitimization of President Trump

 

Maybe gaslight and hope the electors rebel

[Sunshine Jesse]

The thing that concerns me about the Russian hacking incident is, where's the evidence. Imean it's fine for the sources to be anonymous because allegations if this magnitude are concerning, but there appears be zero objectivity in their claims. If they know for a fact that Russia was involved in the Podesta WikiLeaks then why not show us the facts? There is no tangible evidence to look at and say "Huh, guess Russia was involved with the emails," and if there is, why withhold it? No specific building like they did with China, no packets, nothing. Are we supposed to just take their word for it and move on? What have they to gain from that?

The argument going around is that it could reveal their methods for finding out, which does hold weight.