jcsmith

52 minutes ago, impulse said:

It was a long time ago, but I recall thinking (during Reagan and Bush I) that we spent $$$ trillions of dollars to get the Soviet Union to collapse economically, then wouldn't offer any financial assistance at all while many of their people froze to death because their economy was in such tatters.

Putin seems to disagree with that: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-the-fall-of-the-soviet-union-the-us-tried-to-help-russians/2015/05/04/cc4f7c20-f043-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html?utm_term=.c6cfe47fe5a9

12 hours ago, uptheos said:

 

Don't forget he started from a position of weakness, he needed to do something to be heard and shake up the people.

How does that justify making up lies about people, attacking anyone who questions him, or launching his career by creating distrust in the entire system? From random bits such as suggested that Hillary wasn't loyal to Bill, suggesting Obama wasn't an American citizen (and claiming he had it on good account from a reliable source) or that Marco Rubio was ineligible for similar reasons, that Ted Cruz's dad killed JFK, that thousands of Muslims cheered as the towers fell, of Mocking a handicapped reporter and continuing to deny it to this day, spreading false numbers repeatedly (such as the unemployment rate is 96 million Americans or that 81% of whites murdered are killed by blacks), that Hillary was covering up very serious health issues, etc.

None of those things are justified by starting from a position of weakness. And his hateful rhetoric existed long before he ever campaigned to be president. This is who he is.  

3 hours ago, impulse said:

I get the sense that goes on a lot in the intelligence community with respect to the Russkies and baggage left over from the Cold War, (and will resonate for decades with Muslims).  Maybe it’s time for the guys with all that baggage to step out of the way and let a new group at least try to mend relationships with the Russkies- instead of constantly poking the bear (Lemay's characterization). 

While I'm sure what you are describing does exist, and is probably not uncommon among senior members of the intelligence community, it should be noted that after the fall of communism Russia and America were allies. I think the majority of the friction between the two countries at least primarily revolves around events in more recent years. 

Not a huge fan of this move. I think Snowden is a much better candidate for Manning here, though I think the fact that he has taken refuge in Russia has probably hurt his chances with recent events. There's a big difference between what Snowden and Manning did though. Manning put peoples lives at risks, where Snowden exposed something that the public needed to know about. 35 years may have been a bit much, but I'm not sure if 7 years is enough.

If Assange does truly turn himself in though, I could understand the move. And that would probably also go a long way towards restoring his own reputation.  

In Putin's rush to try to legitimize Trump he could be giving himself away. The notion that they wouldn't spy on a wealthy businessman, or that they would have had no reason to spy on Trump (not knowing he'd later run for president) just doesn't hold water. 

Putin launched his political career by such evidence, releasing footage of the the prosecutor trying to take down Boris Yeltsin when he was still a member of the KGB/FSB. The KGB Museum, which was formerly the Intourist Hotel where most tourists stayed shows you all the evidence you can need on their spy tactics. Many of the rooms in this hotel had cameras hidden in them, and there was a whole additional level of the hotel where the then KGB would spy on wealthy or influental travelers to collect a catalog of evidence to blackmail people with if the need should ever arise (such as in the Yeltsin case). The notion that they would not do this to Trump in his visits is laughable. As is the notion that they weren't aware of his political aspirations. He had flirted with politics for a long time, considering running in 1987, and first campaigning in 1999. The fact that he tries to deny knowing this adds another suspicious layer. 

If only the army could show that kind of commitment to elected governments.

While I understand Trump being offended that Lewis questioned his legitimacy, attacking a well respected civil rights leader over and on Martin Luther King Day is a very bad move. He needs to have thicker skin, and he also needs to remember he spent years attacking Obama's legitimacy. He can't attack everyone who speaks out against him.

55 minutes ago, elliss said:

 

 Maybe , CIA  will  be  made redundant  ,  DT was  voted into office  , democratically .

   Proud to be  American . 

And replaced with what? Is Mike Flynn going to be handling intelligence? He and the Donald read some made up news and it leads the country to war? They've both retweeted completely made up stuff multiple times.

33 minutes ago, uptheos said:

The man has been insulted, mocked and vilified for about 18 months.

He's also done more insulting, mocking, and vilification than anyone else has over those 18 months. 

6 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

It is refreshing to hear someone say what they think for a change.  And what he says about Germany and Merkel is true. Even Merkel knows that!

Except for the fact that the things that Trump says are all too often offensive. And everything that he says is going to be taken as a reflection of the United States opinion on the matter. If anyone tells Trump what they think and it is not positive towards him he's going to hit back with a vengeance. If the other people he insults strike back you have a quick escalation where there was no reason to be one in the first place. Most world leaders though are smart enough to not take that bait, but that doesn't mean that his attacks won't influence their opinions or policies towards him or the country that he represents. 

Basically if you want to speak your mind, your in your right to. But if you go around insulting people in public your going to insult the wrong person and take a beating. Trump's attacks are backed by the worlds most powerful military. It's a bully tactic.

1 hour ago, kevkev1888 said:

 

Insulting Merkel. Oh no. How terrible!

The problem I think is that he makes these rants or decisions without considering the implications of them. For example the Taiwan call, he didn't intentionally mean to escalate things with China based on that. But once they responded he did what he always does, he attacked. Which further escalated tensions. I think when he makes some of these Tweets he's doing so based on emotion and that isn't a good thing when it comes to world diplomacy.

Great example here, these are Trump's last tweets today aimed at the CIA Director who just questioned him...

"Outgoing CIA Chief, John Brennan, blasts Pres-Elect Trump on Russia threat. Does not fully understand." Oh really, couldn't do much worse - just look at Syria (red line), Crimea, Ukraine and the build-up of Russian nukes. Not good! Was this the leaker of Fake News?

So he just accused the head of the CIA of leaking the report... again! Nevermind that the report posted by Buzzfeed was not the report they gave him, and that the version that was posted has been circulating for months. Then he points out three travesties committed by Russia, and adds the build up of nukes which is pointless since there are enough to destroy the world many times over already... Those are the reasons that sanctions are in place, not to mention their recent hacking. Yet Trump wants to lift those very sanctions and say it's okay. His cabinet has numerous people who have pressed to lift these sanctions, and who not coincidentally would benefit financially if it happens. 

So once again you have the incoming president questioning his own intelligence community because someone called his decision making into question. He doesn't seem to understand that this type of tweet is exactly what the criticism of him is about in the first place.

I have a lot of fond memories of Ringling Brothers circus as a kid. Sad to see them go, though admittedly I haven't supported them myself (with attendance) in probably 25 years.

15 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

I have made it very plain that I do not much like him, but the man won the election and is about to become president.  I also object to the way that he has been dishonestly demonized before and since he was elected. IMO,  something like 80% of the talking points against him are very distorted facts or out and out lies.

You keep saying that you don't like him but your post history says otherwise. And what are the 80% of the talking points against him which are very distorted facts or outright lies? If someone says that is an outright lie then you should point out what is incorrect about it. While there are certainly some things which fall into that category I think it's a minority. Trump makes these claims out of his own mouth which are easy to verify as false or easy to point out the problems. Yet it seems to me you will defend just about all of them, and then say you do not like Trump very much.

4 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Are you serious? The same thing applies to the Trump haters in spades.  Pot, kettle, black.

Nobody should defend everything outlandish that someone says or does just because you like them. 

6 minutes ago, 3SoiDogNight said:

John Lewis has a lot of nerve to call Trump an illegitimate President. John Lewis's Congressional district is a racially gerrymandered district created for people like him to easily win elections and assure a safe Democratic seat in the heavily Republican state of Georgia. Lewis wouldn't get elected dogcatcher in a more racially diverse or majority white district that reflects the cross-section of the US population as a whole. 

That was quite a deplorable statement. You must be proud.

3 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Trump won't even admit that he has said things when he has been televised saying them. The chances of him admitting to this little evenings entertainment are zero, he will say it is CGI.

And if he did say it was, all the usual suspects here would defend it. They'd tell us how you how piss doesn't reflect the lights properly.

Man so many things in this one thread. With regards to the Flynn calls, that's just another billow of smoke. It probably was just a mishap on his part though.

Quote

- Fake news of Russia hacking the US election

Considering that Donald Trump himself now thinks it was Russia, I think we can safely say that Russia was behind those hacks.

On the L.L. Bean tweet, Trump's manipulation of stocks and businesses couldn't be more obvious. He makes a positive tweets and stocks skyrocket, a negative they plummet. With him refusing to release his tax records there is no way to know if he is or isn't profiting from this, though even if he isn't someone is. He's done this repeatedly.

15 minutes ago, DrDave said:

OK, one last attempt to see the forest past the trees.

I only used Obama as a reference since he was the previously elected president. Nothing to do with race. You can substitute Hillary Clinton (in the event that she had been elected) for Obama in my comments. My point is, then, Clinton supporters would scream bloody murder if Trump supporters would play the "ends justify the means" card and try to shut down Clinton's inauguration.

Regarding whether people should be allowed to protest - of course they should. Should they be allowed to commit unlawful acts in the course of protesting? Of course not. The protest organizer has publicly stated that he aims to shut down all 12 security checkpoints which would most likely require a confrontation with law enforcement and/or the military.  I don't see this ending well for the protesters.

I would disagree that people would scream bloody murder if there were protests against Hillary. Or if they were against Obama so long as they had a valid reason and it's not something like a white power rally. There were a small number of protesters at Obama's inauguration. Trump himself suggested protests after Obama won a second term.Obama also faced protests during his presidency (as have most presidents), but they were never on the scale that Trump is facing. And there is a reason for that.

The bottom line, and the point I was making in my response to you was that Trump's campaign was based on hateful rhetoric that is a direct attack on many of his own citizens. So that is going to bring people out to protest him.This isn't an end to justify the means, nobody expects Trump to step down due to protests. It is a reminder to him though that those people exist and they won't just roll over quietly and pretend that everything is okay.  I don't think there will be any issues with law enforcement or the military. Nobody wants another Kent State. 

The protests can accomplish some things though. First off they serve as a reminder that much of the country not only dislikes Donald Trump, but that they truly despise him. They also suggest that he will see more of the same, and that members of congress will need to answer to their citizens when it comes time to be re-elected. And that can have an influence when it comes time for members of congress to pass some of the more radical proposals.

18 minutes ago, Canceraid said:

Get the army involved. Declare a law a that mobs or protesting in public is not allowed and punishable by death. Shoot the bloody demonstrators dead. Enough is enough. We do not need another Thailand with the mob rule started by Sondthi, the yellow shirts and supported by the political party that have never won any elections. Sore losers all these demonstrators.

So far in this thread we have multiple Trump supporters suggesting civil war. I would think nobody would want that, but I also think we are probably closer to it now than we have been at any point since the civil war. That's what happens when you run a campaign based on hate. If Trump doesn't want to face protests, he needs to be a president for all Americans. So far he has shown zero interest in that. If you support that, then it says a lot about your character, or lack thereof.

8 minutes ago, DrDave said:

My post (which you quoted) had nothing to do with Obama vs Trump, but everything to do with the tactics that people employ to support their agenda. These are same people who scream bloody murder when an opposing group uses the same tactics to support their opposing agenda. They play the "ends justify the means" card in support of their actions, while condemning those who employ the same actions to support an opposing agenda. You can't have it both ways.

Your post said...

Quote

Had the same kind of protest been organized for Obama's inauguration, the organizers most likely would have been labeled intolerant fascists, or worse.

It seems to me that these "ends justify the means" types are pathetic losers, applying this logic if and only if the outcome supports their goals.

So unless you are suggesting that people should not be allowed to protest at all, it was directly relevant. And on the suggestion that they would be labeled facists, it would depend on what their reasons for the protests. Obama certainly faced some racially motivated criticism. But unless you are suggesting that any criticism of Obama would get treated as if it was racially motivated then I would have to disagree. 

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Because the choice ended up between Hillary and Trump - not an unknown, homeless guy with a few missing marbles....

Sorry but that excuse doesn't fly. Ignoring Hillary for a moment, people also choose him over every other nominee the Republicans put up. He's in there because a lot of people bought into what he was selling. Which is scary in itself.

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

 

  Many Far right Americans said the same about Obama

Explain to me how. 

Just now, sanemax said:

 

   You say they just want to stop the celebration, they say they want to stop the process , they are not trying to "shame him" or stop any celebration they are trying to stop him from taking office .

    He got voted in and people are trying to stop a democratic process from happening

  

That's ridiculous. They can't stop him from taking office. What they can do is remind him that they exist, and that more of them oppose him than support him. 

50 minutes ago, DrDave said:

Had the same kind of protest been organized for Obama's inauguration, the organizers most likely would have been labeled intolerant fascists, or worse.

It seems to me that these "ends justify the means" types are pathetic losers, applying this logic if and only if the outcome supports their goals. 

I don't get why it's so hard to understand the difference between Obama and Trump. Whether you like Obama or not, he wasn't presenting policies that were based on hatred for other Americans. His cabinet wasn't saying that the religious group of a large number of citizens was a cancer, threatening to ban a religious group from entering the country, nor was he appointing people to his cabinet with shady backgrounds and little experience at all related to the jobs they were doing. Obama was certainly a democrat, but he wasn't a radical. He wasn't taunting republican citizens, ridiculing Bush every chance he got, he was trying to bring people together. He wasn't defending a foreign government who tried to hack the American election system, attacking the press, or giving Christmas greetings to all of his "many enemies who fought him and lost so badly that they don't know what to do." He wasn't threatening to break up families whose children were American citizens. Nor was he routinely lying to the American people, calling into question the intelligence community. He wasn't riding into office on a campaign built on hateful rhetoric. Etc.

That's a wee bit different than what we're seeing from Trump.  To many people Trump's rhetoric is a direct threat to their way of life. And that inspires a bit more passion and resistance than someone who they simply disagree with. 

14 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Show me a president who did more.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

 

Good luck getting a response to that. It amazes me that people will say Obama did nothing, when he all but saved the economy after the collapse under Bush's watch. The tea party did everything they could to prevent him from doing much of anything.