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/

11 hours ago, Jacquie said:

There's no proof she did anything.

There's no proof Russia hacked the election

4 minutes ago, Atomic said:

There's no proof Russia hacked the election

There isn't?  So 17 Intelligence Agencies are just bored and shooting the **** when they say it happened? 

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

There isn't?  So 17 Intelligence Agencies are just bored and shooting the **** when they say it happened? 

Not one has ever stated they have proof.  They strongly suspect it.

6 minutes ago, Atomic said:

There's no proof Russia hacked the election

There isn't? You've seen the files? Please, let us know more.

 

Or, is it that YOU have not seen any evidence, which is a far cry from "there's no proof"?

Just now, Atomic said:

Not one has ever stated they have proof.  They strongly suspect it.

That's quite a coincidence that 17 intelligence agencies all strongly suspect the same thing.  But yeah, probably just guessing. 

Just now, JCon said:

There isn't? You've seen the files? Please, let us know more.

 

Or, is it that YOU have not seen any evidence, which is a far cry from "there's no proof"?

If someone has proof, it's on them to show it.  Not on me to show that they don't have proof.  And until now, no one has presented any proof, or even stated that they have proof.

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

That's quite a coincidence that 17 intelligence agencies all strongly suspect the same thing.  But yeah, probably just guessing. 

OK.  But that's not proof.  Nice try though.

1 minute ago, Atomic said:

If someone has proof, it's on them to show it.  Not on me to show that they don't have proof.  And until now, no one has presented any proof, or even stated that they have proof.

You said that there is no proof. You don't know that. I would imagine that election hacking would be considered a highly classified item and not generally released to the public.

1 minute ago, JCon said:

You said that there is no proof. You don't know that. I would imagine that election hacking would be considered a highly classified item and not generally released to the public.

No proof has been shared with the public and no one has stated that they have proof.  So until one of those things happen, the statement that "there is no proof" is a lot more believable than the alternative.

You can't come to court with a bag and say "I have evidence in this bag, but I can't show you.  You'll just have to trust me.  You can't prove I DON'T have evidence in this bag."

That's a ridiculous argument.  I mean, the Friends-of-Trump crowd come up with some good ones, but that's pretty hollow.

3 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

That's a ridiculous argument.  I mean, the Friends-of-Trump crowd come up with some good ones, but that's pretty hollow.

My argument is hollow?  You say there is proof Russia hacked the election.  I say there isn't.

The facts:

- No one has shown any proof.

- No one has claimed to have proof.

Which argument is hollow?

18 minutes ago, Atomic said:

No proof has been shared with the public and no one has stated that they have proof.  So until one of those things happen, the statement that "there is no proof" is a lot more believable than the alternative.

You can't come to court with a bag and say "I have evidence in this bag, but I can't show you.  You'll just have to trust me.  You can't prove I DON'T have evidence in this bag."

Proof is just a collection of evidence. If there was no evidence, there would be no investigation led by the GOP.

3 minutes ago, JCon said:

Proof is just a collection of evidence. If there was no evidence, there would be no investigation led by the GOP.

Still not seeing any evidence or any claim of having evidence.  Why don't you step up and show me?  Show me an article that describes the evidence.  Anything!  Literally anything.

16 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Still not seeing any evidence or any claim of having evidence.  Why don't you step up and show me?  Show me an article that describes the evidence.  Anything!  Literally anything.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/

26 minutes ago, Goldkobra said:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/

I went through it all and found nothing new.

Multiple agencies say Russia was "probably" behind the hacks.  Russia is "likely" connected.

It looks like it was Russia.  No one can deny that.  But no one has made an actual link between the hackers and the Russian government, and no agency claims to.  By and large all the "evidence" is circumstantial.  That's not enough for me (nor for the courts, if you're wondering).

 

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

 

Now this I can get on board with

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

 

remarkable times we live in. This is probably a first of some sort.

His security clearance has not been changed though.  He maintains the highest possible clearance so its not like he wont be pulling strings..  Talk is someone else (I cant remember, new NSA?) demanded it under threat of resignation and they couldnt have that.

Hard to imagine this is just the first 100+ days.  Everything that has happened.  Truly remarkable.  The movies that get made and books that get written years down the road will be really fascinating.  Imagine all the stuff we DON'T know that is happening.

Who should play Donald in the film about this?  Could an older Matt Damon pull it off? 

Ummmm

 

11 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Ummmm

 

Trump says based on he what he has read on this matter, no wrong doing here AND Trump has stated he is a very instinctual person. Therefore, matter closed. Oh and April has been declared by Trump National Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

18 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Ummmm

 

I believe that Trump doesn't think he did anything wrong, even if Bill did everything in he's been accused of.

Yup.  Talk about tone deaf.  Like hey, Im all for innocent until proven guilty.  And we can debate the issue to death and how multiple reports, multiple settlements etc, over time and it leads to a logical conclusion yadda yadda yadda.  Then again, Trump admitted on tape to sexually assaulting women so...obviously he wouldnt see it as "wrong".

But really...you're the President.  Pick your spots, idiot.

His respect for women shows no bounds. (yes that's sarcasm)

He does that and then his daughter has the nerve to tweet this...

 

At this point the gender pay gap is basically a myth and there are plenty of resources that support that view.