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/

2 hours ago, Goalie said:

This election was never NEVER as close as the media made it out to be. I don't like Trump... I don't like Hillary but if I'm American and voting that day... I vote Trump because I'm tired of the BS going on in Washington DC. I see a career politician a member of the swamp so to speak and I see a guy who regardless of his issues is not a part of the swamp. I vote for Trump because like lots of Americans I want change. This was about change. Trump = Change and I don't really like him but I get why ppl voted for him. I get why he won. Will that change be better than the last 8 years?  It remains to be seen. Trump has issues... hillary had issues but right now Trump actually deserves a chance to see what he can do. All these people have skeletons in their closets... every politician lies... they all are all talk and no action. Will trump be the same? Maybe but just maybe he will actually MAGA. 

This mindset is one of the main reasons why politics, at any level, has a hard time attracting good people. Who wants to step into the ring when you're automatically seen as bad?

 

1 minute ago, HardCoreBlue said:

This mindset is one of the main reasons why politics, at any level, has a hard time attracting good people. Who wants to step into the ring when you're automatically seen as bad?

I should say not all of them are bad people or lie but a good percentage of them certainly do. They promise you the world but then never really deliver on those promises, i guess instead of saying they are liars or bad people, i should just say they will say what is needed to get elected and then kind of just back off on a few of the things that they said, kind of like Trump and his WALL stance, people actually thought they would build a berlin type wall across the mexico border, that was never gonna happen. 

3 hours ago, Goalie said:

This election was never NEVER as close as the media made it out to be. I don't like Trump... I don't like Hillary but if I'm American and voting that day... I vote Trump because I'm tired of the BS going on in Washington DC. I see a career politician a member of the swamp so to speak and I see a guy who regardless of his issues is not a part of the swamp. I vote for Trump because like lots of Americans I want change. This was about change. Trump = Change and I don't really like him but I get why ppl voted for him. I get why he won. Will that change be better than the last 8 years?  It remains to be seen. Trump has issues... hillary had issues but right now Trump actually deserves a chance to see what he can do. All these people have skeletons in their closets... every politician lies... they all are all talk and no action. Will trump be the same? Maybe but just maybe he will actually MAGA. 

I think you've summarized the reason Trump got elected pretty well.  Trump is not a part of the existing political structure, thus he is a radical, much as Bernie Sanders would have been regarded as a radical if he had advanced further in the presidential election.  A radical could potentially make things better by introducing drastic improvements to the system but one could also easily see how Trump could make things much worse than they currently are and divide the country further.

1 hour ago, Goalie said:

 

I should say not all of them are bad people or lie but a good percentage of them certainly do. They promise you the world but then never really deliver on those promises, i guess instead of saying they are liars or bad people, i should just say they will say what is needed to get elected and then kind of just back off on a few of the things that they said, kind of like Trump and his WALL stance, people actually thought they would build a berlin type wall across the mexico border, that was never gonna happen. 

The mistake is in believing they actually work for "the people", when in fact they are working for the people who line their pockets.  They do their best not to lie to that group.

Edited December 21, 20169 yr by Throw Long Bannatyne

I thought that these graphics were kind of interesting, demonstrating the division in America between Democrat and Republican, and just how concentrated the Democrat vote is in coastal urban centers:

Maps were created using IDW (Inverse distance weighted) technique in ArcGIS.

Edited December 21, 20169 yr by kelownabomberfan

More evidence that Trump surrounds himself with a bunch of racist jerks:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/world/trump-n-y-campaign-co-chair-wishes-death-on-obama-calls-first-lady-male-1.3216037

2 hours ago, Jacquie said:

More evidence that Trump surrounds himself with a bunch of racist jerks:

clicked and read that article. 

 

Absolutely nauseating.

 

Edited December 23, 20169 yr by Mark F
correct spelling mistake

On 12/20/2016 at 10:00 AM, The Unknown Poster said:

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.

The American people will decide if the Electoral College should go or not. As Canadians we have no say. You can post whatever you want & try to justify your belief that it should go but in the end your opinion about the EC mean absolutely nothing. So why even worry about it?

13 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

The American people will decide if the Electoral College should go or not. As Canadians we have no say. You can post whatever you want & try to justify your belief that it should go but in the end your opinion about the EC mean absolutely nothing. So why even worry about it?

If we took this argument on all topics, there would be no discussion on this board. 

We don't impact personnel decisions on the football side of things, yet it is widely talked about. 

 

6 hours ago, Rich said:

If we took this argument on all topics, there would be no discussion on this board. 

We don't impact personnel decisions on the football side of things, yet it is widely talked about. 

 

Some posters here (not all) get carried away with their political beliefs & threads like this become shouting matches. The election is over & Trump is President so it doesn't matter about the popular vote anymore.  Time to move on. I despise Trump but the US election was nearly 2 months ago.

interesting short article. Law signed by Obama the other day setting up a new gubmint agency

http://thegarrisoncenter.org/

 

Quote

the CFDAPA sets aside $160 million over two years to, among other things, “support local independent media to refute foreign disinformation and manipulation in their communities.” That is, to bribe local media to publish Washington’s disinformation and propaganda instead of disinformation and propaganda from foreign sources. Not an entirely new project — the Office of National Drug Control Policy has been paying Hollywood to lie to us about marijuana for decades now.

Yet another propaganda arm of the US government

1 hour ago, Mark F said:

interesting short article. Law signed by Obama the other day setting up a new gubmint agency

http://thegarrisoncenter.org/

 

Yet another propaganda arm of the US government

I tried to post a "Big Brother is watching You" poster in the above post and it didn't work.  Not sure why not.  Anyway, this is very Orwellian, to have the government telling people what they can and can't believe in their media.

yeah it sure is. creepy.

Obama the great liberal..... .

WTH is Obama doing? Just leave ...

So Obama signs a bill that went through the Republican held Senate and Congress and somehow he's completely responsible for it. 

doesn't have to sign it.

 can't be bothered to go check, but what democrats voted against this?

cause, that party hasn't voted for anything like this right Jacquie?

anyway, maybe you didn't read the whole article. It mentions this:

Quote

 

The CFDAPA (yes, I’m going to give that mouthful an acronym) started out as a separate piece of “bipartisan” legislation  introduced by US Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) Chris Murphy (D-CT).

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 20169 yr by Mark F

From Reuters:

Quote

The NDAA passed both chambers in the Republican-led Congress with margins large enough to overcome a veto, and the compromise legislation features many provisions such as a military pay raise and an expansion of a landmark human rights bill, that are extremely popular in Congress. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-congress-idUSKBN13X26G

From The Hill:

Quote

 

President Obama has signed the annual defense policy bill into law, the White House announced Friday.

But Obama said he was disappointed in a number of aspects of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

“Congress again failed to enact meaningful reforms to divest unneeded force structure, reduce wasteful overhead and modernize military healthcare,” he said. “Instead, the Congress redirects funding needed to support the warfighter to fund additional end-strength that our military leaders have not requested at a time when our troops are engaged overseas supporting the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and against al-Qaida."

But, he said, he signed it because it "authorizes fiscal year 2017 appropriations principally for the Department of Defense and for Department of Energy national security programs, provides vital benefits for military personnel and their families, and includes authorities to facilitate ongoing operations around the globe."

The bill passed both the House and the Senate with veto-proof majorities earlier this month.

 

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/311725-obama-signs-annual-defense-policy-bill-into-law

So, again, let's blame Obama for something that would have gone through with or without his signing it.

Edited December 30, 20169 yr by Jacquie

veto proof doesn't mean it would be vetoed. and how many Democrats voted for this? And Obama doesn't seem to be complaining about the act that I posted about.

Anway, Obama says/said a lot of things. He was going to close Guantanamo first day in office. That is an executive decision that he and he alone makes. Still open.

  Obama said he would amend NAFTA. didn't even try. It was a line of BS. 

It's a long list. Making it easier to form a union.... campaigned on that, did nothing. worked with Republicans to pass the transpacific partnership.

but if you listen to him,  it's all the Republicans fault. That argument  doesn't withstand even the slightest scrutiny.

Edited December 30, 20169 yr by Mark F

There are 100 members in the Senate - at the time that it was voted on the breakdown was 54 Republicans, 44 Democrats and 2 independents. The vote passing the NDAA was 92-7. The 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats and 1 independent voted against it with 1 Republican not voting.

Jacquie It seems you think Obama has done a decent job. That's fine.

I think he hasn't. I can list lots of things he's done,  and hasn't done that I don't like... you probably already know most of them and think it's ok.

This one alone sickens me.

 

Quote

The New York Times‘ recent revelation that President Obama, operating off a government “kill list,” has been personally directing who should be targeted for death by military drones (unmanned aerial assault vehicles) merely pushes us that much closer to that precipitous drop-off to authoritarianism. Should we fail to recognize and rectify the danger in allowing a single individual to declare himself the exception to the rule of law and assume the role of judge, jury, and executioner, we will have no one else to blame when we plunge once and for all into the abyss that is tyranny.

Declaring Obama’s actions “without precedent in presidential history,” the New York Times describes a process whereby every few weeks, Obama and approximately a hundred members of his national security team gather for their “Terror Tuesday” meetings in which they hand pick the next so-called national security “threat” to die by way of the American military/CIA drone program. Obama signs off personally on about a third of the drone strikes:

 

ok with you I suppose.

Not me.

9 hours ago, Jacquie said:

There are 100 members in the Senate - at the time that it was voted on the breakdown was 54 Republicans, 44 Democrats and 2 independents. The vote passing the NDAA was 92-7. The 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats and 1 independent voted against it with 1 Republican not voting.

I have yet to find any confirmation on the story about the $160 million for the Big Brother program.  Is this a real thing or was it fake news?  Can anyone find independent confirmation?

Edited December 30, 20169 yr by kelownabomberfan

going to add this from the Guardian:
 

Quote

 

The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice. In September 2011, it killed US citizen Anwar Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen, along with US citizen Samir Khan, and then, in circumstances that are still unexplained, two weeks later killed Awlaki's 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman with a separate drone strike in Yemen.

Since then, senior Obama officials including Attorney General Eric Holder and John Brennan, Obama's top terrorism adviser and his current nominee to lead the CIA, have explicitly argued that the president is and should be vested with this power. Meanwhile, a Washington Post article from October reported that the administration is formally institutionalizing this president's power to decide who dies under the Orwellian title "disposition matrix".

 

Quote

 

The CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of  civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals, an investigation by the Bureau for the Sunday Times has revealed.

But research by the Bureau has found that since Obama took office three years ago, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children. 

Although the drone attacks were started under the Bush administration in 2004, they have been stepped up enormously under Obama.

 

Obama, double tap man.

Known as the "double tap," the tactic involves bombing a target multiple times in relatively quick succession, meaning that the second strike often hits first responders. 

A 2007 report by the Homeland Security Institute called double taps a "favorite tactic of Hamas" and the FBI considers it a tactic employed by terrorists.

 

Having exercised this power without objection, Obama now hands it on to his successor, Donald Trump.

 

 

Edited December 30, 20169 yr by Mark F

21 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I have yet to find any confirmation on the story about the $160 million for the Big Brother program.  Is this a real thing or was it fake news?  Can anyone find independent confirmation?

"On 30 November 2016, legislators approved a measure within the National Defense Authorization Act to ask the U.S. State Department to take action through an interagency panel.[1][6] The legislation authorized funding of $160 million over a two-year-period."

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

 

but, good point, worth checking.

Edited December 30, 20169 yr by Mark F

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I have yet to find any confirmation on the story about the $160 million for the Big Brother program.  Is this a real thing or was it fake news?  Can anyone find independent confirmation?

It's not quite the Big Brother thing that blog called it.