Trump's Presidency

[Federberg]

By the way mate, did any of the Governments of Europe make a statement about the 200 Civilians killed in Mosul by American airstrikes last month?

Again, you're missing my point. I'm not questioning the morality here. I am merely pointing out how US foreign policy, specifically when Russia is in some way entangled, seems to be unclear at the moment. The good news is that Trump has finally come out with a strong statement today, and I'm also intrigued to see that Bannon has been removed from NSC clearance. Clearly a shakeup is underway. The administration is becoming more conventional as the reality of Washington is starting to be realised. Not saying that's a good thing at all, I would love to see Trump drain the swamp and do something about gerrymandering, but I'm not holding my breath for that. So far the nepotism and opportunities for corruption are greater than for any new administration in my lifetime quite frankly

 

[Federberg]

Trump didn't respond quickly enough to condemn the attack = Collusion with Putin?

I didn't say that exactly, but seeing as there is an open investigation on the issue, and the fact that Trump has done everything possible be sound conciliatory to Putin it is unfortunately a valid question. Until all of this gets sorted out that's just reality. Therefore it's valid to question his motives

 

[Federberg]

Trump named Assad by the way, whereas the Russians said Assad bombed a chemical stockpile.

Your point being?

 

[Federberg]

You've already decided that the Russians and Trump colluded to win the election, even with the investigation pending... implied that he wouldn't have won the election without Russian help, which I find borderline ridiculous... and that fake news also contributed to win the day, without ever offering up one example of the fake news that swung it.

I'm not sure I've decided. I'm happy to wait for the investigation. This is all in response to your comment that all of this is becoming boring for you. Well... it's not boring for me. There is an open FBI investigation into the question of Russia's cyber attack, and the possible collusion of Trump associates. Every day there's another link to Russia. We're supposed to dismiss all this because it's boring to you? Nope.. sorry mate, it doesn't work that way. I'm willing to concede that this new administration is innocent until proven guilty, but unlike you I don't see why they should be given a pass when they act suspiciously, until this is all cleared up. As for the fake news stuff... the FBI themselves have said this. I don't need to provide you with evidence mate, I'm going with the FBI, I'll back their expertise on this issue over yours... sorry

 

[Federberg]

Now, the fact he didn't respond in a timely "fashion" is somehow linked to some adoring relationship with Putin. Like I said in an earlier post, the continual "outrage" of having Trump sitting in the Whitehouse generates a relentless feeding frenzy that can't be satisfied... it's daily, it's relentless... and becoming very boring.

Again.. for the reasons mentioned above, the outrage is the obvious reaction to the Russia cloud hanging over this administration. It is not helped by Trumps tweeting, his billionaire appointments, some of his policy actions. What do you expected, when he has precious little mandate based on the closeness of the election result (and not even having a majority of the popular vote). All of this would be diminished by a President who reaches out to the whole electorate, but he continues to just play to his base. You're entirely welcome to be bored by it, but as I said... I'm not. I find it highly entertaining and better than any Vince Flynn book. I can barely watch tv series at the moment. I just switch on CNN, MSNBC or Fox (Shep Smith and Chris Wallace are awesome if you haven't watched them)

 

[britbox]

Sorry, you're not really making a coherent argument and I'm still not sure what your actual narrative is here... but I'll do my best based on how I'm reading your posts - correct me if I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

1. You find it abhorrent that an election process can be influenced.

OK, I'm assuming you mean influence by an overseas power, as we saw multiple instances of how domestic forces tried to influence an election - particularly with the media. That's par for the course with most democratic elections. The media picks a dog and backs it in many cases. So nothing out of the ordinary... although I would suggest that CNN (which one upon a time was considered a serious and more neutral network) went beyond the pale by handing Clinton the questions in advance of a serious debate. I'm surprised you found that so trivial... but it is what it is.

Anyway, moving beyond that...

I'm reading that you don't really find the domestic intrusion abhorrent and I'm on the same page to a degree (although not with CNN's attempt to rig the debate).

So, the point is you don't like non-US powers interfering with the process.

Now we're entering the realm of geopolitics. I'd suggest most countries with any interest in another country would have a preferred candidate/result.

First of all, this concept is widely practised by the United States themselves... they fund NGO's across the world to destabilise governments (democratically elected or not), back their favoured candidates and regularly make statements about other governments and elections that are in their interests... even with close allied countries. Obama made a special trip to the UK to try and swing the Brexit vote to "Remain" - True or False?

On the flipside, it's also par for the course for external countries to have favoured candidates in a US presidential race... generally favouring the ones that serve their interests the best... and it's naive to think otherwise.

Russia, under heavy US sponsored sanctions will obviously favour a candidate who has talked about a fostering a more friendly relationship than one who has been very aggressive toward Russia (i.e. HRC). Would anybody disagree?.

Russia, just like pretty much every other will try and use some influence wherever they can... what I'm finding quite silly about this, is that people seem to think this is something new and outrageous! It's the same propaganda and back channelling many other countries will also use. Remember the list of donors to the Clinton Foundation prior to the election...? Saudia Arabia, Quatar...

Did anybody talk at length of the Clinton "links" with these countries? It's even more laughable that some (and I think you were one of them) tried to legitimise the donations as being for charitable works... Yes, sure, Saudi and Quatar were donating to a charity to enable women... lol

Since HRC lost the election, the donations dried up and they closed the Clinton Global Initiative. Russian Democracy would win awards from Cleisthenes and Pericles in comparison to Saudi and Quatar.

So, in a nutshell - influence is sought from all quarters... Nothing new from Russia, other than many people in the west were brought up in the cold war to view the Russians as big and bad.

My point is: Why is there an issue with Trump fostering better relations with Russia? Surely, it's in the interests of global security.

2. US Foreign Policy

Trump made it fairly clear that he was hoping to foster better relations with Russia before he was elected. You stated the policy is "unclear" - it's not really... he made it loud and clear.... Whether he will be able to deliver on it remains to be seen. The constant pressure to now distance himself from Russia might drive a wedge in his original intentions.

A Healthy relationship with Russia, might be good for a lot of people globally... but it sure as hell isn't in the interests of many in the defence sector, energy companies or others plying the geopolitical game for influence and resources. The whole mechanics of the US Intelligence Infrastructure is also geared toward being Anti-Russian. Likewise, the media in the west is inherently anti-Russian.... I don't think Trump will truly be able to deliver on his original intended policy and it might actually bring him down unless he changes tack.

3. Russia Links and Media Campaigns

As I said in a previous post, you can connect people with anyone via the 6 Degrees of separation. CNN and many of the other western outlets, particularly those who are butt-hurt Trump is in office... will reel out those headlines every day.

Some of the ones on CNN are ridiculous. Mr X, an associate of Trump met with an unnamed Russian businessman with close ties to Putin in Location Z four years ago.... It's constant... usually unnamed sources, often unnamed people... but all sharing links to Putin. At this rate, Putin will need to be sitting around a dinner table with 4 million people each Sunday discussing Donald Trump.

Expect more of the same... the Trump/Russia headlines will be reeled out each and every day. It's an orchestrated campaign. Yet, it's serving it's purpose. You've said yourself... Look at these links coming out every day.... Job done. The feeding frenzy continues. That's the stuff I find boring - it's predictable and shallow.

---

I think there has been back channelling with Russia - some of it probably illegal.... I expect any other candidate will have been back channelling with donors / some linked to foreign states / people of influence. That's the way politics works. I don't think it made a damn bit of difference to the election result. Trump won it fair and square. I don't think Putin is his overlord either.

4. Trump's mandate.

Trump has a mandate - he won the election by a significant majority. No, he didn't win the popular vote, but if the system was different then the electioneering would have been different - don't expect the same results on a hand count - the numbers of voters would likely change and the whole campaigns would have been conducted differently. In the system that is in place, he won fairly comfortably. The mandate is solid.

 

[Federberg]

Sorry, you're not really making a coherent argument and I'm still not sure what your actual narrative is here... but I'll do my best based on how I'm reading your posts - correct me if I'm interpreting this incorrectly.


Lol! Not making a coherent argument? That’s amusing. You said you found the persistence of this saga boring, and I said I disagreed. Everything I’ve mentioned justifying my position is entirely consistent

OK, I'm assuming you mean influence by an overseas power, as we saw multiple instances of how domestic forces tried to influence an election - particularly with the media. That's par for the course with most democratic elections. The media picks a dog and backs it in many cases. So nothing out of the ordinary... although I would suggest that CNN (which one upon a time was considered a serious and more neutral network) went beyond the pale by handing Clinton the questions in advance of a serious debate. I'm surprised you found that so trivial... but it is what it is.

This is laughable! You are trying to equate, a CNN employee (not CNN itself) passing information to members of her political party with Russian interference in the US election? Seriously? Come on man…

So, the point is you don't like non-US powers interfering with the process.

Now we're entering the realm of geopolitics. I'd suggest most countries with any interest in another country would have a preferred candidate/result.

First of all, this concept is widely practised by the United States themselves... they fund NGO's across the world to destabilise governments (democratically elected or not), back their favoured candidates and regularly make statements about other governments and elections that are in their interests... even with close allied countries. Obama made a special trip to the UK to try and swing the Brexit vote to "Remain" - True or False?

On the flipside, it's also par for the course for external countries to have favoured candidates in a US presidential race... generally favouring the ones that serve their interests the best... and it's naive to think otherwise.

Russia, under heavy US sponsored sanctions will obviously favour a candidate who has talked about a fostering a more friendly relationship than one who has been very aggressive toward Russia (i.e. HRC). Would anybody disagree?.

Russia, just like pretty much every other will try and use some influence wherever they can... what I'm finding quite silly about this, is that people seem to think this is something new and outrageous! It's the same propaganda and back channelling many other countries will also use. Remember the list of donors to the Clinton Foundation prior to the election...? Saudia Arabia, Quatar...

Did anybody talk at length of the Clinton "links" with these countries? It's even more laughable that some (and I think you were one of them) tried to legitimise the donations as being for charitable works... Yes, sure, Saudi and Quatar were donating to a charity to enable women... lol

Since HRC lost the election, the donations dried up and they closed the Clinton Global Initiative. Russian Democracy would win awards from Cleisthenes and Pericles in comparison to Saudi and Quatar.

So, in a nutshell - influence is sought from all quarters... Nothing new from Russia, other than many people in the west were brought up in the cold war to view the Russians as big and bad.

My point is: Why is there an issue with Trump fostering better relations with Russia? Surely, it's in the interests of global security.

So many issues with all of this. First of all, I absolutely agree that US interference in other countries, not just democratic elections is unacceptable. But let’s not kid ourselves, it is utterly naïve to suggest that subverting the democratic elections in the US is the same. We are talking about the only super-power. If you don’t get the difference… well.. I don’t know what to say. Secondly, I find your attempt to equate Saudi/ Qatari contributions to the Clinton Foundation which was public, with Russian attempts to subvert the elections to be quite bizarre. One was a matter of public record, the other is potentially treasonous, if there was collusion. You do realise that don’t you? Now we’re all adults here, and we can try and speculate about the motives of the Saudi/Qatari contributions, but we’re talking about apples and oranges. I find it baffling that on the one hand you want to believe the worst about a publicly made charitable contribution from Saudi/Qatar, but you want to believe the best regarding Trump associations with Russia (while a cyber attack, and information warfare was simultaneously waged against the United States). If there was even the remotest credibility behind your concerns the GOP would have been launching investigations into those Saudi/Qatari contributions. You’re on your own with that one mate. I don’t even think Breitbart has suggested anything nefarious there!

As I said in a previous post, you can connect people with anyone via the 6 Degrees of separation. CNN and many of the other western outlets, particularly those who are butt-hurt Trump is in office... will reel out those headlines every day.

It continues to amaze me that you think this is just politics, what appears to have happened goes way beyond that. I can only sigh with relief that there are Republicans who are just as concerned. And no… it’s not as simple as six degrees of separation. The sheer volume of contacts, the fact that the Administration is distancing itself from its own people who were involved in the campaign, the fact that they have attempted clumsy interventions like the one which has now forced Nunes to recuse himself, make it blatantly obvious that this is more than that. In retrospect many things that appeared odd, like the removal of established GOP policy on Ukraine, begin to make more sense if these suspicions are real (not that I agreed with that policy mind you).

Trump has a mandate - he won the election by a significant majority. No, he didn't win the popular vote, but if the system was different then the electioneering would have been different - don't expect the same results on a hand count - the numbers of voters would likely change and the whole campaigns would have been conducted differently. In the system that is in place, he won fairly comfortably. The mandate is solid.

He did not win with a significant majority. What are you talking about? Yes he got over the electoral college hurdle, that by no means implies a strong mandate. I’m assuming you’re just being obtuse here? Some of those states were won by a hair thin majority, which means that the moment his poll numbers sink, like now, he is severely constrained in his ability to implement legislation, which is what we’re seeing

 

[britbox]

I don't find the investigation boring, far from it. What I find boring are the continual non-stop headlines from the mainstream media attacking Trump - many (not all of them) based around unsubstantiated stories and other trivial matters. It's a relentless feeding frenzy. There is no honeymoon period for Trump - that's for sure.

There are several strands to what we've been discussing, but your view of the election result doesn't come across as very coherent to be frank.

Lol! To my mind, you're still trying to litigate the elections. That's over. Trump won.

I'm not there yet. The idea that this election might have been stolen because of collusion with the Russians it abhorrent to me.

I'm reading between the lines, that you haven't accepted the election result. Again, correct me if you think I'm misrepresenting your view, but that's how it reads.

Russian influence over Trump, Russian interference in the election, Russian Links.

These could probably be separated out.

Russian influence over Trump

Seems to me they are so eager not to offend Overlord Putin that they won't make a comment. Seems more America second/ Russia first than America first if you ask me

Appears to me that you've already made your mind up prior to the investigation that Trump is an outright Putin stooge.

You asked me what my point was on a previous post where I pointed out Trump's condemnation of Assad and the attack. The point was that Trump's statement was the polar opposite of Putin's response (Putin said Assad bombed a chemical stockpile rather than dropped chemical bombs). If it was a Russian first policy and he was cow-towing to Putin then why would he make a statement that was totally at odds with Russian conclusion?

I don't think Putin is Trump's overlord or tells him what to do or say.

Russian Links

I've got some common ground with you here. I think there was back channelling about future policy and yes, probably some of it was technically illegal. It's unclear to the extent of Trump's involvement or so-called advisors or associates dealings. Some may have had a back channel to Trump and some others were probably feathering their own nests. The investigations will likely establish some of this, although i'm also guessing other stuff probably went on that the investigations choose not to make public. This part, I am very interested in.

However, outside of this scope, there is a frenzy of wild media speculation, joining dots without substance... this is not investigative journalism, it's cheap headlines - you'll see half a dozen a day on CNN, Guardian and most of the western mainstream media. Anyone who has brushed past Trump in the last 20 years and owns a set of Russian dolls gets thrown into the mix. This is the stuff I am bored with - it's lazy journalism following a narrative set by the editors and owners of the media outlet.

Russian Interference with the Election

We'll agree and disagree on some things here. You've at least acknowledged widespread interference in the election process of other countries by the United States. Agreed.

But let’s not kid ourselves, it is utterly naïve to suggest that subverting the democratic elections in the US is the same. We are talking about the only super-power. If you don’t get the difference… well.. I don’t know what to say.

American exceptionalism? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Yes, you're right though - it's not the same... there was no billion dollar funding to overthrow an elected government, there weren't any sponsored coups, no sanctions, no assassination attempts. There was a cyber attack that compromised the DNC and released emails into the public domain and bias stories put out onto the web. Yes, we are comparing apples and oranges but not in the way you've specified.

Russia, China and other countries are constantly in an information war with the United States - this is nothing new. It's actually a good thing for many, because we get alternative viewpoints and can make more informed decisions.

Collusion

Now, where will likely share some common ground, are on the big questions - Did Trump collude with the Russians to instigate that cyber attack? Did his team collude with his blessing? Did his team collude without his blessing?

If the first two are proven then Trump is in serious trouble. In the third scenario, the specific individual will have a lot to answer for. Are any of these scenarios possible? Of course, but let's wait and see.

DNC Hack

You should also consider there were plenty of other parties outside of the Russians with an interest in this. The hack, which was reported as an "elaborate Russian hack" was anything but. It was a Phishing attack - anyone in the industry will tell you that their is nothing elaborate about Phishing attacks whatsoever - it's fooling the end user to go to a fake web page and enter their login credentials.

I'm not saying it wasn't the Russians - but to say it was an elaborate Russian attack is plain wrong, and most in the industry would agree. It's like finding a smashed window in your house with your belongings missing and a cop saying this has the hallmarks of a Russian theft.

Wikileaks said the Russians didn't do it. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

Influence/Interference

I'd like to kind of break these up. I think all countries will seek influence. It's clearly in Russian interests to gain influence with the Trump team, particularly as he said he wanted to foster better relations going forward. Discussing policy towards Russia and a roadmap to a working relationship going ahead sits OK with me, regardless of the technicalities of when and where and what was said.

On that particular area, I was talking about Saudi/Quatar and other foreign donors buying influence with the Clintons. So yes, let's be adult about this - on this specific segment (influence) we are talking about back channelling and getting heard at the top table. I don't share your thoughts at all that they were donating money to a foundation with one of the primary pillars being to enable women for charitable purposes. Since Clinton's campaign finished, the money dried up. Doesn't that tell you something? They closed the Clinton Global Initiative since. Of course they were buying influence!

Interference as mentioned before is another matter and I'm not saying the Saudis/Quataris interfered with the election process. I'd break interference down into two parts as well.

(1) Interference via propaganda - Sure, the Russians will have done this. They won't be the only ones and I think it's par for the course.

(2) Interference via collusion with Trump for hacking - This is up in the air. This is the part I'm interested in seeing what the investigations throw out. Just for the record - this is what I would consider as being very serious - I'm not being flippant about it, that's why I wanted to break this post down into parts, because a lot of stuff gets lumped together under Trump/Russia and I think you can have different opinions about different parts of it.

As for the fake news stuff... the FBI themselves have said this. I don't need to provide you with evidence mate, I'm going with the FBI, I'll back their expertise on this issue over yours... sorry

Question more... buddy - It's the RT strapline. The channel might be a Kremlin mouthpiece (interesting all the same and good for an alternative viewpoint) but the strapline resonates. The day the intelligence agencies put political pressure above intelligence gathering, which happened long ago, should make that imperative. Saddam Hussein has WMDs... it's gospel - the CIA and MI6 said so.... Doctor Kelly killed himself... it's gospel - MI5 said so. Strange he went grocery shopping before suicide - was that to feed the forensic team? The file on the autopsy is not allowed to be revealed for 70 years.

 

[Moxie]

I see you guys are enjoying a big ol' debate on this, and I'm not going to intrude too much. I mostly stay out of this thread because it seems a place for non-Americans to debate what goes on in the US. As an American, I have enough to do to keep up with the news, editorial, and debates with people here on the ground. But a few things have jumped out, @britbox, that I'd address with you.

Mandate: You have very much overstated Trump's mandate. You do understand he lost the popular vote by 3 million, right? He won the electoral college, but that doesn't mean he's preferred or supported by the majority of the American voters, and his poll numbers reflect that, which are low.

Media on Trump: You say you're tired of the "media" attacking him, but it's been a pretty disheveled start for the aged virgin to public office, and it's the job of the media to report it. If it comes off badly, it has a lot to do with him lying, his spokespeople lying on his behalf, the disaster of his healthcare "initiative," which had no plan, and was tone-deaf to what the people have actually embraced about having healthcare, and, yes, the Russia investigation. What are they supposed to report? All hearts and flowers? Even Fox isn't doing that.

I do think we have a right to be appalled that Russia fiddled our elections, and I rather agree with @Federberg that hacking the US elections has more global impact. I can't make any moral argument for the elections that the US has interfered in, but I'm astonished how so many Republicans are willing to make it a political talking point about the Russians hacking ours, rather than expressing any actual outrage.

I also think that your outrage about some of the "sins" of HRC is disproportionate to your willingness to give DJT a pass. Getting debate questions, which she didn't need, anyway, is not the moral equivalent to sexually harassing women, dog-whisting to and denying racists; and the question of obscuring a few emails has nothing on refusing to release his taxes, which might expose Trump's obligation to foreign elements, including, most especially, the Russians.

As to Russia Times providing an "alternate view," I don't think clear propaganda arms which trade in disinformation is the same as seeking an alternate POV.

That's my bit for now. Carry on with your previously scheduled argument.

 

[britbox]

I see you guys are enjoying a big ol' debate on this, and I'm not going to intrude too much. I mostly stay out of this thread because it seems a place for non-Americans to debate what goes on in the US. As an American, I have enough to do to keep up with the news, editorial, and debates with people here on the ground. But a few things have jumped out, @britbox, that I'd address with you.

Mandate: You have very much overstated Trump's mandate. You do understand he lost the popular vote by 3 million, right? He won the electoral college, but that doesn't mean he's preferred or supported by the majority of the American voters, and his poll numbers reflect that, which are low.

His mandate is that he was elected to be the President of the United States in the system you have in place. You think he should be implementing Clinton's policies instead, because she won the popular vote? His victory within the system you have in place was quite clear.

As I've mentioned previously - you change the system and by proxy you change the electioneering strategy. Maybe Trump would have spent more money (Clinton spent nearly 3 times as much money as Trump)... maybe he'd have spent more time and money in the metro areas. Maybe more republicans in those areas would have been more inclined to vote if they saw it as meaningful. I wouldn't assume the voting numbers or patterns would be the same.

In the UK, the Conservative party have as strong mandate and clear majority... I doubt even @Federberg would dispute this. Yet over 63% of the country doesn't support them. You play the system. I would personally think in a H2H presidential race, a straight national handcount would be better - but some Americans I've spoken with are strongly in favour of the electoral college for various reasons. @Asmodeus who is also "on the ground" in the US, being one of them contributing to this thread.

Media on Trump: You say you're tired of the "media" attacking him, but it's been a pretty disheveled start for the aged virgin to public office, and it's the job of the media to report it. If it comes off badly, it has a lot to do with him lying, his spokespeople lying on his behalf, the disaster of his healthcare "initiative," which had no plan, and was tone-deaf to what the people have actually embraced about having healthcare, and, yes, the Russia investigation. What are they supposed to report? All hearts and flowers? Even Fox isn't doing that.

You are misunderstanding what I said. No problems with the media attacking Trump, just the orchestrated frenzy of garbage on trivial, unsubstantiated stories - the volume of which I have never witnessed before. The ones with unnamed sources, unnamed businessmen, "close to Putin", "nearly had a meeting", "close to Trump'... not to mention all the ridiculous celebrity overreaction.

I do think we have a right to be appalled that Russia fiddled our elections, and I rather agree with @Federberg that hacking the US elections has more global impact. I can't make any moral argument for the elections that the US has interfered in, but I'm astonished how so many Republicans are willing to make it a political talking point about the Russians hacking ours, rather than expressing any actual outrage.

Well, neither you or @Federberg seem inclined to wait until the investigation is finished... but there is a difference between hacking DNC emails and hacking an election result. You're implying that the result would have been different... and those Wikileaks weren't disinformation, they were raw data. Stuff that the DNC didn't want in the public domain - but all true nevertheless.

I also think that your outrage about some of the "sins" of HRC is disproportionate to your willingness to give DJT a pass. Getting debate questions, which she didn't need, anyway, is not the moral equivalent to sexually harassing women, dog-whisting to and denying racists; and the question of obscuring a few emails has nothing on refusing to release his taxes, which might expose Trump's obligation to foreign elements, including, most especially, the Russians.

HRC's sins go way beyond not declaring that she'd received the questions for the debate under the table. She didn't need them anyway? How would you ever know? She lost the election with the debate questions... the debates of course, being televised before record numbers of viewers.

As to Russia Times providing an "alternate view," I don't think clear propaganda arms which trade in disinformation is the same as seeking an alternate POV.

That's my bit for now. Carry on with your previously scheduled argument.

You've said you don't read RT, so how would you know?

 

[Moxie]

His mandate is that he was elected to be the President of the United States in the system you have in place. You think he should be implementing Clinton's policies instead, because she won the popular vote? His victory within the system you have in place was quite clear.

As I've mentioned previously - you change the system and by proxy you change the electioneering strategy. Maybe Trump would have spent more money (Clinton spent nearly 3 times as much money as Trump)... maybe he'd have spent more time and money in the metro areas. Maybe more republicans in those areas would have been more inclined to vote if they saw it as meaningful. I wouldn't assume the voting numbers or patterns would be the same.

In the UK, the Conservative party have as strong mandate and clear majority... I doubt even @Federberg would dispute this. Yet over 63% of the country doesn't support them. You play the system. I would personally think in a H2H presidential race, a straight national handcount would be better - but some Americans I've spoken with are strongly in favour of the electoral college for various reasons. @Asmodeus who is also "on the ground" in the US, being one of them contributing to this thread.



You are misunderstanding what I said. No problems with the media attacking Trump, just the orchestrated frenzy of garbage on trivial, unsubstantiated stories - the volume of which I have never witnessed before. The ones with unnamed sources, unnamed businessmen, "close to Putin", "nearly had a meeting", "close to Trump'... not to mention all the ridiculous celebrity overreaction.



Well, neither you or @Federberg seem inclined to wait until the investigation is finished... but there is a difference between hacking DNC emails and hacking an election result. You're implying that the result would have been different... and those Wikileaks weren't disinformation, they were raw data. Stuff that the DNC didn't want in the public domain - but all true nevertheless.



HRC's sins go way beyond not declaring that she'd received the questions for the debate under the table. She didn't need them anyway? How would you ever know? She lost the election with the debate questions... the debates of course, being televised before record numbers of viewers.



You've said you don't read RT, so how would you know?

Wow, you've attacked a lot of my points, and it's hard to know where to start. But I will start with the notion that having a "mandate" is different from winning an election. If you won by a technicality, and don't own the popular vote, no, you don't have a mandate. You are in a situation that you're going to have to coerce some support from the other side. But obviously I don't think he should be implementing Clinton's policies. That's beneath you.

As to RT, I've never said I don't read it. I have, especially forced by Teddy, who is currently absent. I find it to be mostly a propaganda rag. Look, even Breitbart is interesting on a given day, but it doesn't mean it's not more agenda-driven than news-forward.

 

[britbox]

Wow, you've attacked a lot of my points, and it's hard to know where to start. But I will start with the notion that having a "mandate" is different from winning an election. If you won by a technicality, and don't own the popular vote, no, you don't have a mandate. You are in a situation that you're going to have to coerce some support from the other side. But obviously I don't think he should be implementing Clinton's policies. That's beneath you.

As to RT, I've never said I don't read it. I have, especially forced by Teddy, who is currently absent. I find it to be mostly a propaganda rag. Look, even Breitbart is interesting on a given day, but it doesn't mean it's not more agenda-driven than news-forward.

mandate: the authority to carry out a policy, regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election.

Trump won the election.

He didn't win on a technicality - he won the election based on a system you've had in place for years. His strategy and campaign was to win the electoral college. You might not like the system, but it is what it is.

He's actually been trying to implement policies he said he would during the campaign. Even @Federberg admitted that. If you're claiming he shouldn't because in (your eyes) he has no mandate., then what would he be permitted to do by you? Nothing?

I think RT is guilty of bias reporting regularly, but so are many of the mainstream western media outlets. You hear a lot of additional news or a varying viewpoint that will often throw up other considerations or events that have taken place that have no or little reporting in the west. I read RT knowing it's angle but that doesn't make it disinformation. Take a look at it over the next few days and out of interest, tell me what fake news is being reported.

I'm not a fan of Trump overall by the way - I think the vibes relating to his foreign policy are very dangerous... On his personality, I think he's used to being a despot where he just removes dissenting voices... which isn't going to work well in a presidency. He'll have to learn to work with other parties (within the Republican party, across the divide and also with his allies abroad). On the other hand, I find his America First policy on domestic affairs engaging.

Anyway, on a more important, Trump orders Tomahawk missiles to be fired into Syria... Something tells me Putin didn't order him to do it as the Russians have called for a security council meeting to discuss it.

Maybe Trump took that action partly because of the pressure about the perceived relations with Russia... or maybe he's decided to be proactive in the middle east militarily...(dangerous games). It's against international law to attack a sovereign nation... some members of Congress across the divide are already calling it unlawful. Assad is a pretty heinous character but one thinks.. Why would he use chemical weapons now? When he clearly has an advantage militarily without them... The west made it's mind up that he was guilty almost immediately... something seems strange, almost orchestrated about it.

 

[Nekro]

Anyway, on a more important, Trump orders Tomahawk missiles to be fired into Syria... Something tells me Putin didn't order him to do it as the Russians have called for a security council meeting to discuss it.

Maybe Trump took that action partly because of the pressure about the perceived relations with Russia... or maybe he's decided to be proactive in the middle east militarily...(dangerous games). It's against international law to attack a sovereign nation... some members of Congress across the divide are already calling it unlawful. Assad is a pretty heinous character but one thinks.. Why would he use chemical weapons now? When he clearly has an advantage militarily without them... The west made it's mind up that he was guilty almost immediately... something seems strange, almost orchestrated about it.

I'm officially done with Trump. He's a useless clown. I said China was going to be the dealbreaker for me but the blundering idiot managed to mess up much sooner. RIP America, one retarded president after another.....

 

[britbox]

I'm officially done with Trump. He's a useless clown. I said China was going to be the dealbreaker for me but the blundering idiot managed to mess up much sooner. RIP America, one retarded president after another.....

Very dangerous game he's getting into. I'm wondering if it's a marker to put distance between himself and Russia on the domestic front and creating a distraction at the same time... or if it's the opening salvo in a military intervention.

I see McCain is licking his chops already... that man has an insatiable appetite for war.

 

[Moxie]

mandate: the authority to carry out a policy, regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election.

Trump won the election.

He didn't win on a technicality - he won the election based on a system you've had in place for years. His strategy and campaign was to win the electoral college. You might not like the system, but it is what it is.

He's actually been trying to implement policies he said he would during the campaign. Even @Federberg admitted that. If you're claiming he shouldn't because in (your eyes) he has no mandate., then what would he be permitted to do by you? Nothing?

I think RT is guilty of bias reporting regularly, but so are many of the mainstream western media outlets. You hear a lot of additional news or a varying viewpoint that will often throw up other considerations or events that have taken place that have no or little reporting in the west. I read RT knowing it's angle but that doesn't make it disinformation. Take a look at it over the next few days and out of interest, tell me what fake news is being reported.

I'm not a fan of Trump overall by the way - I think the vibes relating to his foreign policy are very dangerous... On his personality, I think he's used to being a despot where he just removes dissenting voices... which isn't going to work well in a presidency. He'll have to learn to work with other parties (within the Republican party, across the divide and also with his allies abroad). On the other hand, I find his America First policy on domestic affairs engaging.

Anyway, on a more important, Trump orders Tomahawk missiles to be fired into Syria... Something tells me Putin didn't order him to do it as the Russians have called for a security council meeting to discuss it.

Maybe Trump took that action partly because of the pressure about the perceived relations with Russia... or maybe he's decided to be proactive in the middle east militarily...(dangerous games). It's against international law to attack a sovereign nation... some members of Congress across the divide are already calling it unlawful. Assad is a pretty heinous character but one thinks.. Why would he use chemical weapons now? When he clearly has an advantage militarily without them... The west made it's mind up that he was guilty almost immediately... something seems strange, almost orchestrated about it.

I'm slightly insulted that you feel the need to "define" mandate to me. It may be understood differently in your dictionary, but in the US, a mandate to govern means more than winning an election. It means having a preponderance of the people behind you. Other Presidents have been seen to be elected without a mandate. This wasn't invented to diss Trump.

And yes, the electoral college is the law of the land, but Trump did win on that technicality. 3 million more people voted for HRC than voted for Trump. And an additional 7 million voted for another candidate. A lot of people in this country bothered to vote and didn't vote for him. Surely that's far from a mandate, anyway. A reasonable leader would see it as his job to bring the divergent sides together, not as a blank check to bully his own agenda.

 

[Nekro]

Very dangerous game he's getting into. I'm wondering if it's a marker to put distance between himself and Russia on the domestic front and creating a distraction at the same time... or if it's the opening salvo in a military intervention.

I see McCain is licking his chops already... that man has an insatiable appetite for war.

I didn't like what he was saying about China before but i didn't expect him to do something like this. I also suspect he did it to save himself from the Russia trolling. However, what he did here confirmed he can't be trusted as a future ally by anybody. Surely the Russians write him off, people who are really concerned about Islam write him off, Christians will write him off, everybody he was posing as the representative of will write him off..... Unfortuntely it looks like he's really just a faking nihilistic capitalist with no real convictions.

 

[Nekro]

Just lol!!!!, Britain jumped on the terrorist-enabling wagon again, should i say NID? They were crying nonstop about Blair but looks like they never learn either. Supporters of radical islamists will stay what they are:

"Britain has described the overnight assault as an "appropriate response" to this week's "barbaric" chemical attack in Syria, while Russia warned the act of "aggression" will damage its relations with America.

Four children are reported to be among nine civilians killed in the "targeted assault" on the air base, from where Trump said a devastating nerve agent strike was launched earlier this week. Six servicemen - none of them Russian - are believed to have also been killed.

The UK Government has offered its full support to the surprise barrage of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles, which were launched from US ships in the Mediterranean and struck the Shayrat air base in central Syria in the early hours of Friday."

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...es-us-air-strikes-against-assad-regime-syria/

 

[britbox]

Just lol!!!!, Britain jumped on the terrorist-enabling wagon again, should i say NID? They were crying nonstop about Blair but looks like they never learn either. Supporters of radical islamists will stay what they are:

"Britain has described the overnight assault as an "appropriate response" to this week's "barbaric" chemical attack in Syria, while Russia warned the act of "aggression" will damage its relations with America.

Four children are reported to be among nine civilians killed in the "targeted assault" on the air base, from where Trump said a devastating nerve agent strike was launched earlier this week. Six servicemen - none of them Russian - are believed to have also been killed.

The UK Government has offered its full support to the surprise barrage of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles, which were launched from US ships in the Mediterranean and struck the Shayrat air base in central Syria in the early hours of Friday."

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...es-us-air-strikes-against-assad-regime-syria/

No surprises there. You'll have very similar responses from Australia, New Zealand, Canada as standard support. Likely Israel, Saudi and Qatar would support it too.

 

[mrzz]

Let´s see how things develop on Syria, but I won´t be surprised if it is all just theatrics. The hard fact is that the battle front reached Idlib (remember, that´s the city the opposition/rebels/terrorists/isis fled to when escaping from Aleppo). So this guys are being cornered, and it is no surprise that some response from the power openly backing it would be felt.

I am sorry, it is obvious that it is impossible to know what actually happened. The sad true -- and the only actual fact known -- is that all parts are denouncing chemical weapons use by the other, for years. It would a gigantic leap of faith - and of ingenuity -- to be believe that the "rebel" (or whatever label you may use) forces would not be as capable of using it as Assad.

To think that the Syrian government, even if composed solely by murderers -- would not be able to make the political calculation regarding the consequences of an open chemical attack is beyond ridiculous.

The "Russian version" at least makes much more sense -- but, again, it also has no backing. But the US saying that eye witness saw "chemical bombs" being dropped is beyond absurd. How the hell you expect an eye witness to be able to tell the difference between a bomb blowing a chemical plant, and a bomb containing chemicals falling inside of a city (which, according to the US, is invisible)?

The CNN´s "expert" saying that all sarin gas would be blown away is laughable from a physical point of view. Does he actually wants us to believe that it is impossible to a chemical plant to leak chemicals while being attacked?

Again, both parties have not agreed on doing an investigation -- the Russians were a bit more open to that, but not decisively open. So the sad conclusion is that both sides have something -- probably a lot -- to hide. Neither can stuck up for the sides they are backing.

With the Russians being given notice of the attack, I would guess no serious damage was actually done. This way Trump looks tough on the Russians and gives some breathing room to the US allies inside Syria. I won´t be surprised if this is the last US action on Syria, and in one year all those regions will be taken back by the central government without too much headlines.

 

[britbox]

I'm slightly insulted that you feel the need to "define" mandate to me. It may be understood differently in your dictionary, but in the US, a mandate to govern means more than winning an election. It means having a preponderance of the people behind you. Other Presidents have been seen to be elected without a mandate. This wasn't invented to diss Trump.

And yes, the electoral college is the law of the land, but Trump did win on that technicality. 3 million more people voted for HRC than voted for Trump. And an additional 7 million voted for another candidate. A lot of people in this country bothered to vote and didn't vote for him. Surely that's far from a mandate, anyway. A reasonable leader would see it as his job to bring the divergent sides together, not as a blank check to bully his own agenda.

He has an executive mandate. I'm not trying to insult you, but you are giving me your interpretation of a definition. I'm going off the actual definition not an interpretation... but not to split hairs. You don't feel he has a mandate... I understand your view but disagree with it... and I don't think yours is a standard view of the citizens of the United States based on commentary I've read from many other Americans. As per usual with all things Trump - it's polarising. His advocates say he has a mandate, his opponents say otherwise.

My opinion is that he has an executive mandate. He may have to work with other groups within the Republican party or across the divide in some cases to have a legislative mandate... he clearly didn't get that with the Obamacare replacement failure... at least for now.