In shock move, Trump fires FBI Director Comey

[LannaGuy]

3 minutes ago, iReason said:

^^^

 

One more poster who professes and generally prefaces to not be "a Trump guy", "I'm not a Trump supporter", "I don't support Trump", "I didn't vote for Trump, but..."

(Of which there at least a half a dozen on these threads) yet, charges in with a defense of the inept, incompetent, unqualified occupier of the White House.

 

It's suspiciously common.

Is it in the troll training manual?

 

Yawn...

I proffer that's not fair... I can only talk about myself but I am a member of the British Labour Party, pro-choice and pro-marijuana and cannot, for the life of me, understand why any rational thinking human being could vote Republican.  Yet... and there is a 'yet'... I can see the 'why' millions voted for the reality show candidate and why millions voted 'brexit' and millions more will vote for other 'off-piste' ideologies.

 

The problem the liberal left has is 'credibility' amongst the millions of ordinary voters. People 'sense' the mischief of the news media, who may have the right motives, but yet seek to twist and turn the truth for that agenda. Speak to it in the REAL and those voters will come back!  all this PC nonsense simply sparks ordinary people's 'BS detector' and they run to what it REAL. Trump is REALLY an ego-centric nothing but he is REALLY an ego-centric nothing and many of the champions of the left are fake as they manipulate every small thing as a justification for their LOSS.

 

Find REAL leadership that is non-PC and Trump is toast. Stop bashing the Trump supporters and try to understand WHY it happened. He seemed the most REAL. No doubt I will be flamed, as usual, but it's worth considering? 

[iReason]

11 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

The problem the liberal left has is 'credibility' amongst the millions of ordinary voters.

all this PC nonsense simply sparks ordinary people's 'BS detector' and they run to what it REAL.

Stop bashing the Trump supporters and try to understand WHY it happened.

 

I've condensed your post to get to the core of the matter.

 

Millions more voted against Trump.

 

"REAL"?? Like the supporters for the massively unqualified occupier of the White House, you appear clearly uninformed.

The BS factor can be applied to him like no other in recent times.

 

It happened due to the archaic rule of the Electoral College. (Along with the appeal to bigots, racists and uneducated voters)

 

But he was still out voted. Period.

 

I will proffer that divisive labels like "the liberal left" add nothing to the dialogue. Indeed, it exponentially polarizes it.

Now more so than ever.

 

But I do appreciate your reasoned approach.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

I proffer that's not fair... I can only talk about myself but I am a member of the British Labour Party, pro-choice and pro-marijuana and cannot, for the life of me, understand why any rational thinking human being could vote Republican.  Yet... and there is a 'yet'... I can see the 'why' millions voted for the reality show candidate and why millions voted 'brexit' and millions more will vote for other 'off-piste' ideologies.

 

The problem the liberal left has is 'credibility' amongst the millions of ordinary voters. People 'sense' the mischief of the news media, who may have the right motives, but yet seek to twist and turn the truth for that agenda. Speak to it in the REAL and those voters will come back!  all this PC nonsense simply sparks ordinary people's 'BS detector' and they run to what it REAL. Trump is REALLY an ego-centric nothing but he is REALLY an ego-centric nothing and many of the champions of the left are fake as they manipulate every small thing as a justification for their LOSS.

 

Find REAL leadership that is non-PC and Trump is toast. Stop bashing the Trump supporters and try to understand WHY it happened. He seemed the most REAL. No doubt I will be flamed, as usual, but it's worth considering? 

I went to your 

 

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

I proffer that's not fair... I can only talk about myself but I am a member of the British Labour Party, pro-choice and pro-marijuana and cannot, for the life of me, understand why any rational thinking human being could vote Republican.  Yet... and there is a 'yet'... I can see the 'why' millions voted for the reality show candidate and why millions voted 'brexit' and millions more will vote for other 'off-piste' ideologies.

 

The problem the liberal left has is 'credibility' amongst the millions of ordinary voters. People 'sense' the mischief of the news media, who may have the right motives, but yet seek to twist and turn the truth for that agenda. Speak to it in the REAL and those voters will come back!  all this PC nonsense simply sparks ordinary people's 'BS detector' and they run to what it REAL. Trump is REALLY an ego-centric nothing but he is REALLY an ego-centric nothing and many of the champions of the left are fake as they manipulate every small thing as a justification for their LOSS.

 

Find REAL leadership that is non-PC and Trump is toast. Stop bashing the Trump supporters and try to understand WHY it happened. He seemed the most REAL. No doubt I will be flamed, as usual, but it's worth considering? 

I went to your page on thaivisa because something didn't seem quite right about the way you represent your opinions here. And I looked back at your comments before the election, Basically lots of anger at the Press for the way Trump is treated and lots of contempt for Clinton. Whereas for Trump you say his remarks are unfortunate but you are  basically very forgiving of him.  Nothing at all about how CNN among others devoted much more time to email servers and such than the issues the candidates were running on. So I think the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that what you are doing here is called "concern trolling." Basically a concern troll claims to be basically with the other side, or once to have been with the other side, but now etc.. The goal is to convince opponents that he or she is a fair-minded person. It's been around in some form  before the internet and I suspect always will be.  

But if you want to get away with this, you should begin by hiding the record of your comments. 

[Andaman Al]

2 hours ago, maewang99 said:

  and it has no connection to what Nixon did in firing Cox, there's Zero parallel.



 

 

 

[Briggsy]

Trump has changed track on this again.

 

He seems to be either trying to get ahead of the story (there may be evidence he is lying about what he was told by Comey) or simply muddy the waters by changing the narrative (by turning it into a playground fight - him vs Comey (he specialises in those)).

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39899542

 

He needs to divert attention and subvert the Russia investigations.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Briggsy

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, maewang99 said:

You're fired!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

we are making a big deal of this.

I'm not a Trump guy. but he just simply fired the guy. I believe him. 

it wasn't well thought out.... that's it.  but it sure is being thought out afterwards by everyone else.  and it has no connection to what Nixon did in firing Cox, there's Zero parallel.



 

No, this is a big deal.

Quote

 

Trump’s warning deepens doubts about his respect for the rule of law

 

 

This saga, which the president just escalated in a big way, should be viewed through the prism of Trump’s entire career. Threatening to release a secret tape of the FBI director, in addition to asking him if he is under investigation during what was essentially a job interview, would both fit with a pattern that suggests this president views the rule of law with disdain

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/05/12/daily-202-trump-s-warning-to-comey-deepens-doubts-about-his-respect-for-the-rule-of-law/

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Jing, thanks for posting the link above to the Washington Post opinion piece analyzing whether AG Sessions and even Trump have engaged in illegal obstruction of justice by firing the FBI director. Obstruction of justice, of course, is exactly what ultimately got Nixon undone in the wake of the Watergate scandal, that included him directing the firing of the special prosecutor in the case. Sound familiar???

 

What that article points out, which some here may not connect or remember, is that AG Sessions recused himself, meaning he vowed to have no role in, the ongoing investigation into the Russia election hacking and any ties to Trump or Trump's campaign.  So it's a very good and interesting question how an AG who vowed to stay out of such matters can then turn around and recommend to the President, as has been publicly stated by the Administration, the dismissal of the director of the agency (Comey and the FBI) that are conducting that very same investigation.

 

I doubt the Republicans in Congress are going to do anything meaningful about this. But it certainly opens the door to others filing some type of legal action against Sessions for violating the law and his legal ethics by making a promise of recusal and then turning around and by all appearances blatantly violating it.

 

Meanwhile, that the president was willing to fire the FBI director who, like it or not, ended up doing things that provided considerable help and influence to Trump winning the election (that being Comey's pre-election public announcement about reopening the Clinton investigation--which ultimately led to nothing) is sure some kind of strong indication that there are some really BAD things afoot back in the U.S.A.

 

[sandrabbit]

1 hour ago, Briggsy said:

Trump has changed track on this again.

 

He seems to be either trying to get ahead of the story (there may be evidence he is lying about what he was told by Comey) or simply muddy the waters by changing the narrative (by turning it into a playground fight - him vs Comey (he specialises in those)).

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39899542

 

He needs to divert attention and subvert the Russia investigations.

I don't understand what Trump is trying to do threatening about conversations being recorded , now no one will trust him in politics or business. I think he just pissed in his chips as regards the publics perception of him.

[Basil B]

It is getting better...

Quote

FBI chief sacking: Trump warns Comey over leaks to media

US President Donald Trump has warned fired FBI chief James Comey against leaking material to the media.

He tweeted that Mr Comey had "better hope there are no 'tapes' of our conversations", suggesting such tapes, if they existed, might contradict him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39899542

 

So what is he scared of???

[Andaman Al]

1 minute ago, Basil B said:

It is getting better...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39899542

 

So what is he scared of???

And who else will now sit down at a table and have dinner with him while discussing 'various things' ?

[pegman]

3 minutes ago, Basil B said:

It is getting better...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39899542

 

So what is he scared of???

15-20 long ones in a federal penitentiary.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

This is the pretty non-partisan The Hill's account of the state of things at the White House post-Comey:

 

Quote

 

"It's total chaos," said one former transition team official with close ties to the administration.
 

"It's image-making on the inside and people trying to protect themselves. There is a deep streak of paranoia among staff. The communications team s--- the bed on the Comey firing and now the war with the FBI has them all scared and throwing each other under the bus. "Thank God I don't work there. If I did, I'd be dialing up my attorney."
 

The behind-the-scenes stories that gripped Washington on Thursday were relayed to the press in the publications and news outlets Trump loves to hate - the New York Times and Washington Post.

In the stories, Trump's decision to fire Comey was described as the result of "festering anger" at the FBI director for failing to prioritize leaks coming out of the bureau over the investigation into allegations Trump campaign officials colluded with the Russians during the election.

Trump was "stewing" at Comey for weeks, even as some close to him, including chief strategist Stephen Bannon, reportedly advised that the time was not right to fire Comey.
 

Trump only informed his communications team about the firing an hour beforehand, according to reports, but still raged at his staff for not being more prepared to defend his actions...

 

 

[sandrabbit]

Trump is getting a roasting on CNN at the moment and there is nothing I can disagree with.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Briggsy said:

Trump has changed track on this again.

 

He seems to be either trying to get ahead of the story (there may be evidence he is lying about what he was told by Comey) or simply muddy the waters by changing the narrative (by turning it into a playground fight - him vs Comey (he specialises in those)).

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39899542

 

He needs to divert attention and subvert the Russia investigations.

This is getting scary.  Trump is acting less like the impulsive, clueless narcissist we've come to expect, and more like an old man having a bad reaction to his medications.  Keep in mind that he can launch nuclear weapons, and nothing short of a mutiny at the highest levels in the US military (something that's never happened) will prevent it.

[sandrabbit]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

This is getting scary.  Trump is acting less like the impulsive, clueless narcissist we've come to expect, and more like an old man having a bad reaction to his medications.  Keep in mind that he can launch nuclear weapons, and nothing short of a mutiny at the highest levels in the US military (something that's never happened) will prevent it.

Please he can't launch them without any credible threat, you have made some good posts so don't go

there please.

Edited May 12, 2017 by sandrabbit

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 minutes ago, sandrabbit said:

Please he can't launch them without any credible threat, you have made some good posts so don't go

there please.

I don't want to go there either... But, perhaps you're forgetting North Korea....

 

Nothing like a little diversion to take the country and the world's mind off his political woes.

 

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, sandrabbit said:

Please he can't launch them without any credible threat, you have made some good posts so don't go

there please.

I base my claim on twenty years as an officer in the USAF, much of it working on nuclear weapons delivery systems.  What do you base your claim on? 

 

Mutually Assured Destruction (face it, MAD is still the basis of deterrence) does not allow time to second guess the Commander in Chief.  If he gives the order to launch, the chain of command will assume that Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles will wipe out Washington DC in a matter of minutes.

 

Edit:  I apologize, I don't like these end of the world thoughts.  I and many others have had to live with them for decades.  The uninformed optimism of others is sometimes very worrying.

Edited May 12, 2017 by heybruce

[sandrabbit]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I base my claim on twenty years as an officer in the USAF, much of it working on nuclear weapons delivery systems.  What do you base your claim on? 

 

Mutually Assured Destruction (face it, MAD is still the basis of deterrence) does not allow time to second guess the Commander in Chief.  If he gives the order to launch, the chain of command will assume that Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles will wipe out Washington DC in a matter of minutes.

Agreed but what's the likelihood of something like that happening and he would be advised to react but he can't launch anything on his own?.  A more likely scenario would be a nuclear weapon being brought by ship and moored in  New York harbor , then detonated at the moment.  The way you are talking is the way that the invasion of Iraq happened but I would wish that the use of a nuclear weapon would have a lot more thought especially going back to the past when the US wanted to nuke the moon rising above the horizon.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, sandrabbit said:

Agreed but what's the likelihood of something like that happening and he would be advised to react but he can't launch anything on his own?.  A more likely scenario would be a nuclear weapon being brought by ship and moored in  New York harbor , then detonated at the moment.  The way you are talking is the way that the invasion of Iraq happened but I would wish that the use of a nuclear weapon would have a lot more thought especially going back to the past when the US wanted to nuke the moon rising above the horizon.

What makes you think he can't launch anything on his own?  What makes you think a man acting as irrationally as he has been will wait for a 'recommendation' to launch?  As I posted, he's acting like an old man having a bad reaction to his medications.

 

There aren't men in uniform watching his every move to ensure he doesn't do anything stupid.  He is the one, and the only one, who can order the launch of US nuclear weapons, and his order to launch can not be questioned unless there is a high level military mutiny.

[sandrabbit]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

What makes you think he can't launch anything on his own?  What makes you think a man acting as irrationally as he has been will wait for a 'recommendation' to launch?  As I posted, he's acting like an old man having a bad reaction to his medications.

 

There aren't men in uniform watching his every move to ensure he doesn't do anything stupid.  He is the one, and the only one, who can order the launch of US nuclear weapons, and his order to launch can not be questioned unless there is a high level military mutiny.

I have to ask you seriously can he really do that because if he says launch there has to be a target reacting to the threat, ie attacking the threat not everyone the US thinks might be a threat?.

[pegman]

20 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I base my claim on twenty years as an officer in the USAF, much of it working on nuclear weapons delivery systems.  What do you base your claim on? 

 

Mutually Assured Destruction (face it, MAD is still the basis of deterrence) does not allow time to second guess the Commander in Chief.  If he gives the order to launch, the chain of command will assume that Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles will wipe out Washington DC in a matter of minutes.

 

Edit:  I apologize, I don't like these end of the world thoughts.  I and many others have had to live with them for decades.  The uninformed optimism of others is sometimes very worrying.

Thanks for your informed insights.

How bad has it gotten? Well, bad enough for this pleu to the world's spook community for evidence of treason by the guy controlling a nuke arsenal. 

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/11/keith_olbermann_asks_foreign_intelligence_to_interfere_to_help_end_trump_coup.html

[Basil B]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

What makes you think he can't launch anything on his own?  What makes you think a man acting as irrationally as he has been will wait for a 'recommendation' to launch?  As I posted, he's acting like an old man having a bad reaction to his medications.

 

There aren't men in uniform watching his every move to ensure he doesn't do anything stupid.  He is the one, and the only one, who can order the launch of US nuclear weapons, and his order to launch can not be questioned unless there is a high level military mutiny.

Not sure how it works, but I would hoped it was a case of the military of asking his authorisation to launch, without a request there would be no launch. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 minutes ago, sandrabbit said:

I have to ask you seriously can he really do that because if he says launch there has to be a target reacting to the threat, ie attacking the threat not everyone the US thinks might be a threat?.

 

Yes, the President can order a nuclear strike. And as stated above, the system is designed to respond quickly, and there's no built-in process for dickering over whether or not it's the right thing for a President to do. Though in Trump's case, if he really went off the deep end, you'd have to wonder what the U.S. military leadership would do.  Never really faced that kind of situation in U.S. nuclear history, AFAIK.

 

The one area I was going to ask Bruce about was, I seem to recall there having been some past simulations where they tested the AF folks manning the nuclear silos and when faced with an apparent order to launch, some couldn't bring themselves to do it.  Of course, it's not like it takes a lot of nukes to cause a big problem for the world.

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, sandrabbit said:

I have to ask you seriously can he really do that because if he says launch there has to be a target reacting to the threat, ie attacking the threat not everyone the US thinks might be a threat?.

I have never been the one at the end of the chain with responsibility to launch the missiles or (assuming aircraft made it to the target) drop the bombs.  I don't know, have a need to know, or a desire to know the full details of the execution of the order to launch. 

 

I know the system was designed with worst case scenario in mind, in terms of having to react quickly to a surprise strike.  That was essential to the deterrent effect of Mutually Assured Destruction.  It was not designed to allow for an irresponsible man with the final authority to launch.

[Jingthing]

The president has total power to launch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football

Quote

 These orders are given and then re-verified for authenticity. It is argued that the President has almost single authority to initiate a nuclear attack since the Secretary of Defense is required to verify the order, but cannot legally veto it.

 

[balo]

This will get bigger than the Watergate scandal .That's what we'll remember in 10 years from now, The big scandal that shock the world.  

 

[sandrabbit]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I have never been the one at the end of the chain with responsibility to launch the missiles or (assuming aircraft made it to the target) drop the bombs.  I don't know, have a need to know, or a desire to know the full details of the execution of the order to launch. 

 

I know the system was designed with worst case scenario in mind, in terms of having to react quickly to a surprise strike.  That was essential to the deterrent effect of Mutually Assured Destruction.  It was not designed to allow for an irresponsible man with the final authority to launch.

Thanks for your answers so if it hasn't been done, I would be surprised  after the end of the cold war it hasn't been done,  the US with more flexible options doesn't have it's 'instant' finger on the trigger and looks at more flexible options.

[heybruce]

7 minutes ago, Basil B said:

Not sure how it works, but I would hoped it was a case of the military of asking his authorisation to launch, without a request there would be no launch. 

Again, I don't know the details of the execution of the order to launch.  Maybe there is a human in the chain that will be forced to choose between following the orders he/she has been trained for years to execute, or assuming they know more than the President and disobeying the most important order in history, and committing treason.

[anon4546543]

18 hours ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

What's all the helabaloo?

 

trump fired a commie! About time!

 

trumps got balls and brains. He knows how to take charge, make stuff happen, and make sure your team is up and running. 

 

You leftys are going to have a long 8 years squealing like girls. 

Trump fired a commie? Or a Comey?

Never mind, you probably don't know the difference. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

It would seem there's been an odd transformation in U.S. politics with the arrival of Trump.

 

For most of modern U.S. political history, it was the Russians/communists who were America's stated enemies, the right wing Republicans were the avowed hard-core foes of Russia and the communists (think back to Ronald Reagan), and liberals were often portraying as being soft on them.

 

But now with Trump, suddenly, the President and his cohorts are good buddies with the Russians, the Congressional Republicans don't seem willing to go against the President when it comes to Russia in general and the Russian election tampering issue in particular, and now it's the Democrats who are the ones fighting against and warning about Russia's meddling in U.S. politics.

 

My my, how times have changed.