Lets see if we can keep this thread a little more civil.

I found this interview very interesting.  A lot of soft balls thrown at Trump, he explained his back pedalling on his more extreme issues as a lot of his claims as opening bids for negotiation purposes.  Which .. whatever .. I still think that those are insincere claims he used to get elected.

He does now come across way more presidential then he did prior to the election.  A lot of his noise, yelling, and rhetoric has been scaled back.

Do respect this one though:

Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

I thought this graphic was interesting - it shows just much of the US population is concentrated in such small parts of the US.

21 hours ago, Jacquie said:

From the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.9bd998a9bf54

 

 

Clapper?

"During testimony in March that has become infamous, Clapper told Senator Ron Wyden, a member of the intelligence committee, that the NSA was not intercepting data on millions of Americans.

After the revelations from whistleblower Edward Snowden, Clapper eventually apologized to the Senate panel, citing a momentary memory failure – although he initially said he gave the “least untruthful” answer he could publicly provide."

also "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said Russia is not behind the emails from Hillary Clinton, her State Department staff, allies, and Democrats that WikiLeaks has published."

forgotten is the deep corruption revealed by the leaked emails. Nobody cares about any of that apparently. Very Good PR by the democrats.

 

 

Edited December 17, 20169 yr by Mark F

6 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

To show us what a shitty tv journalist Maria Bartiromo is?

 

It's funny how two people can watch a video and see the complete opposite.  What I saw is that Christine Pelosi is just as stunned as her mother.

8 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

It's funny how two people can watch a video and see the complete opposite.  What I saw is that Christine Pelosi is just as stunned as her mother.

How was she stunned? She didn't freeze or anything... she was shouted down by Maria and many occasions... My favorite is at 2:00 when she is shouting "WOO HOO... WOO HOO Christine! " while she was continuing her explaination to Maria... it was bizarre... 

Watch it again without the Regressive tinted glasses- be objective and you will see that it is a terrible way to conduct an interview.

Edited December 18, 20169 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

15 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

Watch it again without the Regressive tinted glasses- be objective and you will see that it is a terrible way to conduct an interview.

LOL - "regressive tinted glasses", no one can have a different opinion than you without being labeled.  I am willing to give her some benefit of the doubt if she couldn't hear Maria trying to get in a word edgewise, but to me it just seemed like Pelosi was babbling away and spouting talking points.  I wonder how interested the Dems would be in "getting to the bottom" of this Russia stuff if Hillary had won.  I would guess that this issue wouldn't even be talked about right now, or Trump would be talking about it, and everyone would be laughing at him.

19 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

LOL - "regressive tinted glasses", no one can have a different opinion than you without being labeled.  I am willing to give her some benefit of the doubt if she couldn't hear Maria trying to get in a word edgewise, but to me it just seemed like Pelosi was babbling away and spouting talking points.  I wonder how interested the Dems would be in "getting to the bottom" of this Russia stuff if Hillary had won.  I would guess that this issue wouldn't even be talked about right now, or Trump would be talking about it, and everyone would be laughing at him.

Note to both of you. They were both highly irritating regardless of political view.

Edited December 18, 20169 yr by HardCoreBlue

18 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

How was she stunned? She didn't freeze or anything... she was shouted down by Maria and many occasions... My favorite is at 2:00 when she is shouting "WOO HOO... WOO HOO Christine! " while she was continuing her explaination to Maria... it was bizarre... 

Watch it again without the Regressive tinted glasses- be objective and you will see that it is a terrible way to conduct an interview.

"Bubblehead" couldn't tolerate an answer longer then 10 seconds, it was supposed to be an interview, not a debate.  The interviewer asks questions and the interviewee answers them, interrupting in the middle of an answer by asking another question is just a method to disrupt and discredit the interviewee.  I can't tolerate this style of journalism as it just makes everyone dumber.  God help us.

4 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Note to both of you. They were both highly irritating regardless of political view.

LOL - yeah good point.  In a good mood as enjoying some Christmas cheer while watching the Jets finally play a complete game.  Merry Christmas to all and safe travels if you are traveling in the next week to be with your loved ones.

You know, there's always been a kind of "rule" that in a bar there were 2 things you never talked about. Religion & politics. As it seems most of you are drunk when you post here you may want to think about that when you say something. LOL!  

Edited December 19, 20169 yr by SpeedFlex27

36 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

You know, there's always been a kind of "rule" that in a bar there were 2 things you never talked about. Religion & politics. As it seems most of you are drunk when you post here you may want to think about that when you say something. LOL!  

That rule also applies when visiting the US, I spent 4 years down there and learned to keep my mouth zipped when those subjects came up.

 

http://thecomeback.com/nhl/florida-panthers-owner-donald-trump-cabinet.html

But, the month’s not over yet, so there was ample time for things to get stranger – and it has. Panthers co-owner Vincent Viola was picked by president-elect Donald Trump as Secretary of the Army.

Vincent Viola nominated as Secretary of the Army.
» https://t.co/7vjSvwDlo3 pic.twitter.com/BUXByZOgzL

— Florida Panthers PR (@FlaPanthersPR) December 19, 2016

Edited December 20, 20169 yr by Mark F
edit

So turns out... a white Christmas doesn't just mean snow on the ground it also is what trump is turning his cabinet In to. Seriously has there ever been a whiter old man cabinet in history? 

8 hours ago, Goalie said:

So turns out... a white Christmas doesn't just mean snow on the ground it also is what trump is turning his cabinet In to. Seriously has there ever been a whiter old man cabinet in history? 

Man of the people, Mr Blue Collar.  His cabinet is very representative of America.  Or a least Trump's America.

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Man of the people, Mr Blue Collar.  His cabinet is very representative of America.  Or a least Trump's America.

I am waiting for the complete cabinet and then I will draw my conclusion. But so far... Ewwwww 

Clinton was bad, George Bush was bad, Obama has been pretty  bad, I think Clinton would have been bad, but Trump is taking it to the next level.

Unsurprising.

It seems pretty representative of Trump as a person.  Plays up that he's the blue collar candidate (when he lives in a palace of gold) and then appoints a cabinet of billionaires, millionaires, friends.  Its looking like a country club.

Whats the over/under before Trump gets bored and quits?  Im saying two years.

I found it funny that after all of the celebs trying to influence the Electoral College to vote for "someone else", only two votes didn't go to Trump on the Republican side, while on the Democrat side, four votes didn't go to Hillary.  After all of the money spent on a last gasp to influence the EC, Hillary ended up being the one getting less votes.  I guess upholding democracy was more important than the eternal respect of Martin Sheen and Mike Farrell (who?)  When will these narcissists ever learn?  No one cares what you think!!

 

Edited December 20, 20169 yr by kelownabomberfan

44 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I am waiting for the complete cabinet and then I will draw my conclusion. But so far... Ewwwww 

I have a feeling that no matter who Trump appointed, and how diverse his cabinet would be, that all there would be would be negative comments from the MSM.  As I expect every policy he comes up with to met with by the MSM.  As every move he has made since the day after he won has been met with the MSM. 

Here is Jim Brown talking about his admiration for Trump - the CNN commentator is in complete shock:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/12/13/jim-brown-donald-trump-cnn-brooke-baldwin-jim-brown.cnn

I for one just want to see the best people for the job.  I realize in government that is no longer the way things are, and talent and experience have to take a back seat to the PC rules, but I guess I'm old fashioned that way.  One complaint I heard over and over again from the many Trump voters I talked to in the US was that they were tired of unqualified people getting all of the jobs in government.  Are the people Trump is appointing qualified?  If so, then Trump is doing what he was elected to do. 

Edited December 20, 20169 yr by kelownabomberfan

The Americans have such a messed up system. The people with those votes have way too much power.

Yes, those that voted as pledged for Trump upheld democracy.  Those that voted against their pledge by not voting for Hilary also upheld democracy as long as you're a republican.  lol

It was a silly campaign to begin with.  But not completely without merit.  If the Electoral College serves no purpose but to essentially ratify the vote, get rid of them.  Their purpose is to be the final judgement on whether the winning candidate is worthy and qualified.  One could certainly argue Trump is neither.  In an election where he barely won and, in fact, lost the vote by a significant number, the purpose of the college was relevant.  And they did exactly as expected and in our modern time, exactly as they should...which in turn shows how useless the whole thing is to begin with.

4 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I have a feeling that no matter who Trump appointed, and how diverse his cabinet would be, that all there would be would be negative comments from the MSM.  As I expect every policy he comes up with to met with by the MSM.  As every move he has made since the day after he won has been met with the MSM. 

Here is Jim Brown talking about his admiration for Trump - the CNN commentator is in complete shock:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/12/13/jim-brown-donald-trump-cnn-brooke-baldwin-jim-brown.cnn

I for one just want to see the best people for the job.  I realize in government that is no longer the way things are, and talent and experience have to take a back seat to the PC rules, but I guess I'm old fashioned that way.  One complaint I heard over and over again from the many Trump voters I talked to in the US was that they were tired of unqualified people getting all of the jobs in government.  Are the people Trump is appointing qualified?  If so, then Trump is doing what he was elected to do. 

I have a feeling no matter how white, rich and "friend of Candidate" Trump's cabinet was, the Trump-coloured glasses far right crowd would defend it.  Just as they'd be critical of literally anyone a democrat President-Elect would appoint.  Works both ways when you wear blinders.

5 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

The Americans have such a messed up system. The people with those votes have way too much power.

They dont really.  They are appointed based on their pledge to vote the way their state population voted.  In some cases, it is illegal to vote otherwise.  So basically, it was set up to be the sober second thought last line of defense and evolved into a scenario where they became pointless in the grand scheme of thing.

There have been so-called faithless voters over the years, but it doesnt ever matter.

The point against doing away with them and just going to a popular vote is that larger states would control the outcome.  Without the College, Hilary would have won quite handedly (assuming both candidates campaigned the same way, which they probably wouldn't have).

33 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I have a feeling no matter how white, rich and "friend of Candidate" Trump's cabinet was, the Trump-coloured glasses far right crowd would defend it.  Just as they'd be critical of literally anyone a democrat President-Elect would appoint.  Works both ways when you wear blinders.

I am not defending his cabinet, but I don't see why skin color or gender is the most important aspect of picking a cabinet.  I realize this isn't a "PC" attitude.  I am just saying that the people I talked to were frustrated by what they saw as incompetent boobs, no matter what their gender or skin color, being appointed to positions of power in the government (no matter which party was in power) purely due to political reasons, and not because of merit or experience or talent.  Is Trump reversing that trend and appointing talented, experienced people (at least perceived to be anyway)?  I don't know.  I just think saying that they are bad appointments because there are too many "white" people just seems to be reverse discrimination. 

Edited December 20, 20169 yr by kelownabomberfan

20 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

  Without the College, Hilary would have won quite handedly (assuming both candidates campaigned the same way, which they probably wouldn't have).

Yes, I keep seeing this statement being made that Hillary won the popular vote.  If that was the factor that determined the ultimate winner, then Trump's campaign team would have devised a completely different campaign.  The popular vote as it stands in the US is just a statistic, like how many shots were recorded in a hockey game.