Where is/can Donald Trump take US (sic)?

basilio said:

Very ably assisted by creative Russian troll factories creating a million false narratives which are picked up and amplified by Fox, Briebart and the Liar In Chief and swallowed by sheeple who can't think for themself.

Cheers!

Click to expand...

What happened to the Russian hackers?
Instead its a bunch of Russians on twitter. Hardly the crime of the century.

Anyone who uses twitter generally cant think for themselves anyway.

basilio said:

who can't think for themself.

Cheers!

Click to expand...

hmmm, pot....

basilio said:

No thats the way to (temporily) silence a totally deranged xxxxwit who also happens to be the most powerful and dangerous man on earth.

Click to expand...

10 months or so in office.... no people killed by Trump, only injuries caused by nazi antifa violence, US stock market booming, other deranged xxxxwits in Korea silenced by Trump.....

I wonder why only Clinton's campaign was hacked, it seems.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-...democrats-and-clinton-campaign-emails/9118834

moXJO said:

Anyone who uses twitter generally cant think for themselves anyway.

Click to expand...

And that is the ingeniousness of the act, the Russians exploited this fact, it was brilliant. They were able to sway the results from a computer back in their home land.

Got to give it to them and Trump, they used social media as a vehicle to get what the wanted.

Holy moly, the Russians sure are powerful. They influenced the USA to elect Trump, just using Twitter.
Time to get rid of all those armies, just open up a lot of twitter accounts.
(North Korea and China take note).

The fairies at the bottom of the garden love twitter too

satanoperca said:

And that is the ingeniousness of the act, the Russians exploited this fact, it was brilliant. They were able to sway the results from a computer back in their home land.

Got to give it to them and Trump, they used social media as a vehicle to get what the wanted.

Click to expand...

No they didn't.
Hillary was unelectable in the first place. She was the giant turd in the room, despite what the dems will tell you. They were also up to their neck in dirt.
The Russian hack story is just to smokescreen their shortcomings. Still too delusional to admit they lost.

moXJO said:

Hillary was unelectable in the first place.

Click to expand...

More people voted for her than Trump.

I wouldn't call that unelectable.

The voting system was skewed against her in a number of ways.

basilio said:

swallowed by sheeple who can't think for themself.

Cheers!

Click to expand...

From a person who quotes exclusively from the Guardian and Cookes sham site, I find that comment laughable.

SirRumpole said:

More people voted for her than Trump.

I wouldn't call that unelectable.

The voting system was skewed against her in a number of ways.

Click to expand...

Its based on state not just California.
Otherwise you could say the same thing for Australia. Preference votes skew against liberals.

wayneL said:

From a person who quotes exclusively from the Guardian and Cookes sham site, I find that comment laughable.

Click to expand...

From a person who can't/won't think and therefore can't actually read The Guardian that is particularly laughable.

basilio said:

From a person who can't/won't think and therefore can't actually read The Guardian that is particularly laughable.

Click to expand...

I find your childish trolling laughable.

You honestly believe that agendized piffle the repository of all knowledge?

Oh my!

To borrow a recent and apt malapropism, it is a suppository of marxist ideology and attendant misinformation, nothing more.

Sorry bas, I like to avoid the intellectual paddle pools of mainstream echo chambers and swim in the deep water, where real ideas anf intercourse inhabit.

Ah the deep waters of resfresing intellectual pursuits Wayne.

These are the ones where you discover that Donald Trump is just a misunderstood genius whose light will soon create a New World Order of flowering prosperity, intellectual and scoial freedom unlike the dark days of President Obama.

And of course where one can divine that the entire body of current climate science knowledge is intellectually bankrupt and that the world isn't warming (that much) and that it is all a UN/Maxist/Fabian plot to bankrupt the precious essences of our fossil fools industry.

Dribble on Wayne. Your intellectual prentensions.... .........are just that.

basilio said:

Ah the deep waters of resfresing intellectual pursuits Wayne.

These are the ones where you discover that Donald Trump is just a misunderstood genius whose light will soon create a New World Order of flowering prosperity, intellectual and scoial freedom unlike the dark days of President Obama.

And of course where one can divine that the entire body of current climate science knowledge is intellectually bankrupt and that the world isn't warming (that much) and that it is all a UN/Maxist/Fabian plot to bankrupt the precious essences of our fossil fools industry.

Dribble on Wayne. Your intellectual prentensions.... .........are just that.

Click to expand...

Well, apart from a glaring inaccuracy and the purulent strawman argument, pretty close to the actual truth, Komrade.

The world of the Liar in Chief.

How much is Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross actually worth ? He said he was worth $2.9B. However Forbes reckons he has lied and he only "worth" $700m. But it gets better.


Commerce secretary Wilbur Ross lied about wealth by $2bn, Forbes reports
Magazine says it removed him from 2016 rich list after financial disclosures showed less than $700m in assets



US commerce secretary Wilbur Ross in London. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

Shares
53

Associated Press

Wednesday 8 November 2017 01.26 GMT Last modified on Wednesday 8 November 2017 01.58 GMT

Forbes reported Tuesday that the US commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, exaggerated his net worth by $2bn, which the magazine said it discovered after he protested being removed from its 2016 list of the 400 richest people in the US.

Forbes cited years of internal reporting notes and conversations with Ross, an investor who has been described as “the king of bankruptcy” for buying beaten-down companies with the potential to deliver profits.


Trump commerce secretary's business links with Putin family laid out in leaked files
Read more
The magazine, which estimated Ross to be worth $2.9bn in its 2016 list, said it decided to remove Ross from the list after financial disclosure forms filed after his cabinet nomination showed less than $700m in assets.


Forbes says Ross protested, claiming that he had transferred more than $2bn to family trusts between the 2016 election and Donald Trump’s inauguration. But when that claim raised ethics and tax questions, the Department of Commerce issued a statement saying there had been no such transfer.


Forbes said it was now “confident that the money never existed. It seems clear that Ross lied to us.”

The commerce department did not respond to requests for comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/07/wilbur-ross-forbes-rich-list-exaggerated-wealth

National Day for the Victims of Communism

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/11/07/national-day-victims-communism

SirRumpole said:

More people voted for her than Trump.

I wouldn't call that unelectable.

The voting system was skewed against her in a number of ways.

Click to expand...

More people didn't vote for either of them.

DNC's former chairwoman (and former CNN host? who slipped Clinton questions for a debate with Sanders) recently wrote that the Clinton campaign took over the DNC a year before the 2016 campaign.

It was supposed to be neutral, not favouring any candidate until the people decide who they want etc. etc. But Clinton promised to raise money for the DNC, to help them out of their financial troubles - I guess people just don't donate to corrupt no-good parties seeing what Obama did for them.

Anyway, the promise was to raise money so that the DNC can stay solvent with the extra cash going down to the state and local level to help other Democrats etc. etc. All at a cheap price of having Clinton's people making big important decisions for the DNC.

Those big and important DNC/Clinton people then work their magic by raising money "for the DNC" but channel it back up again into the Clinton campaign.

So not only was Sanders being screwed, other Democratic politicians were too.

The rules were rigged, voters suppressed... their superdelegates was all in Clinton's pockets long before "the people" decides.

So how were the rules rigged against Clinton?

Maybe she wasn't able to rig and buy off the entire political system.

Tink said:

National Day for the Victims of Communism

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/11/07/national-day-victims-communism

Click to expand...

China, Vietnam... those aren't Communist states abusing friends, neighbours and citizens?

Trump and the great corporate Americans seem to get on with them pretty well during the recent journey to the East.

And errr... do you realise that the Bolshevik (lead, claim credits and power) the overthrew of an imperial, dictatorial dynasty ruling over them with an iron fist, right? They didn't overthrew a democratically elected president of the people - like Trump, say.

I don't know enough about the Bolshevik, Soviets and Russian revolution... and of course not defending their own imperial adventures or Stalin's killing and torture of his own people. But the truth is a lot more complicated than Communism/Soviet bad, Western value [of the non Communist kind] is all good.

Remember that Czarist Russia was a decrepit has-been imperial power before the 1917 revolution. It lost a war to the sick men of Japan. It was a majority agricultural economy with the knowledge and liberty the ruling dictators and their mandarins permit. i.e. it was a crap hole.

On top of that, WW2 killed some 20 million of its people. Destroyed most of its cities.

To come out of that being a country that put the first man in space, challenge the power and influence of the mighty US of A - a country that was practically unscathed at home, that managed to bring back from Europe migrants, refugees, tonnes and tonnes of Nazi gold and practically all the capital of Europe the Nazi didn't destroy (and the Soviets didn't get to).

Failure is probably oversimplifying the situation.

-------------

As to the Soviets being nasty evil doers... During those worst decades, as that link put it... Stalin and his Soviets were allies with the Alliance. They fought against the Nazi. After WWII, they were still friends with the US. President Truman have said that Stalin is a fine bloke and they don't care of the butchery Stalin ordered as long as they're friends.

The Soviets got unfriended not for the killing and undemocratic crap. But because they put that Iron Curtain up over half of Europe - taking it as theirs.

That and imagine the message it sends to other peasants around the world being ruled by kings, emperors or kind colonial masters.

A peasant military could rise up, take the capitalist pigs wealth... thrive and be independent?

China's Qing was gone a decade or two before WWII ended. But Mao and his peasants was whooping the capitalist-backed Chiang in Southern China.

In a tiny country like Vietnam, peasants dared rise up to challenge the power and liberty French colonialism?

Anyway... Trump will one day be seen as a good president with schools and libraries named after him. Holy fark. talk about the twittering of history.

One of the bombshell news articles in the lead up to President Liars election was the release of a investigation by a former MI6 spy into the connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. There is an exceptional story in the Guardian which examines the history of the investigator and the currency of his findings.

Christopher Steele believes his dossier on Trump-Russia is 70-90% accurate
The respected ex-MI6 officer told Guardian journalist and author Luke Harding that his FBI contacts greeted his intelligence report with ‘shock and horror’

• The Long Read: how Trump walked into Putin’s web

Christopher Steele is quoted in Luke Harding’s book Collusion as saying: ‘I’ve been dealing with this country for thirty years. Why would I invent this stuff?’ Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA

Shares
4148

Julian Borger in Washington

Wednesday 15 November 2017 16.52 GMT First published on Wednesday 15 November 2017 16.32 GMT

Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer who compiled an explosive dossier of allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, believes it to 70% to 90% accurate, according to a new book on the covert Russian intervention in the 2016 US election.

The book, Collusion: How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win, by Guardian journalist Luke Harding, quotes Steele as telling friends that he believes his reports – based on sources cultivated over three decades of intelligence work – will be vindicated as the US special counsel investigation digs deeper into contacts between Trump, his associates and Moscow.

“I’ve been dealing with this country for thirty years. Why would I invent this stuff?” Steele is quoted as saying.

One of the reasons his dossier was taken seriously in Washington in 2016 was Steele’s reputation in the US for producing reliable reports on Russia, according to Harding’s book.


Between 2014 and 2016, he authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine, which were commissioned by private clients but shared widely within the state department and passed across the desks of the secretary of state, John Kerry, and the assistant secretary Victoria Nuland, who led the US response to the annexation of Crimea and the covert invasion of eastern Ukraine.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/christopher-steele-trump-russia-dossier-accurate