President Elect Trump watch

[metalman]

I mentioned his age in response to your statement about an ancestor selling his farm to finance his trip to America. Unless all of your siblings and parents had died, that was a young age to be the single owner of a farm even back then.

on my fathers side:
It was his father who moved the family from Oldenburg and purchased the farm in 1870, my great great grandfather was one of his children
my grandmothers father also came over in 1870 at 14 with his brother and worked as a hired hand until he purchased a farm


On my mothers side
her mothers side goes back to Jamestown, her fathers side arrived in the 1800's

 

[Robert]

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to care as much about the ongoing farce but I suppose this sort of merits a mention, even though it will surprise absolutely no one:
Donald Trump fact check: Almost every big claim he made in his speech to Congress was false

 

[Robert]

Looks like the marriage has hit a rocky patch:
Donald Trump supporters threaten to boycott Fox after host criticises President

I can't imagine this will help:
Fox News anchor attacks Donald Trump for ‘too much lying'

 

[redrumloa]

I can't imagine this will help:
Fox News anchor attacks Donald Trump for ‘too much lying'

Fox is still part of the "Mainstream Media". I was watching Fox News Channel the night of the election, and the hosts were acting like they just had a death in the family, like a spouse or a child. It was surreal. They're on the take for that Soros money too.

 

[Robert]

Bernie Sanders interview in today's Guardian.
Some snippets:

... we have a president who is a pathological liar...

... Trump lies all of the time and I think that is not an accident...

He lies in order to undermine the foundations of American democracy.

... tax breaks to billionaires and devastating cuts to programs that impact the middle class, working families, lower-income people, children, the elderly, the poor..

... called a judge nominated by George W Bush a “so-called” judge because he issued an opinion differing with the president.

What he wants, I think, is to end up as leader of a nation which has moved in a significant degree toward authoritarianism..

... clearly the most anti-environmental president in the history of this country..

... to talk about protecting clean air and water on the same day that you issue a regulation that will increase pollution of air and water is hypocritical beyond belief.

Not all one sided either:

... if you were to go out on the street today in any place in this country and ask working people whether they think the Democratic party is the party of the American working class, very few would say yes. If you did that in the 1930s under Franklin Delano Roosevelt they would say yes...

Let’s not forget it was a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who deregulated Wall Street; a Democratic president, Clinton, who pushed for Nafta; a Democratic president, Barack Obama, who pushed as hard as he could for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

 

[redrumloa]

Bernie Sanders interview in today's Guardian.
Some snippets:

He attacks Trump claiming he's for big business. During the primaries Bernie received millions from Wall Street, Trump received none. Bernie also received millions and a free plane from Hillary to turn on his supporters and support her.

Bernie is a fraud.

 

[JoBBo]

He attacks Trump claiming he's for big business. During the primaries Bernie received millions from Wall Street, Trump received none.

What is your reliable source?

Bernie also received millions and a free plane from Hillary to turn on his supporters and support her. Bernie is a fraud.

Even big political opponents have agreed in public that the guy has been pretty {bleep} consistent for decades. Realizing that Trump is a much bigger threat to his political ideals than Clinton would have been is not being a fraud but having common sense.

Whether you personally agree with his ideals is a totally different story. Clearly, you are as far removed from sharing his views anybody can be.

 

[redrumloa]

What is your reliable source?

Fortune Magazine.
Wall Street Spent $2 Billion Trying to Influence the 2016 Election

In what many would see as a bit of a surprise, Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., ranks in the top ten on the list, having received more than $2.8 million from the sector.

Trump is not even mentioned.

As for Hildabeast:

USA Today:
Clinton’s 2016 bid draws more Wall Street fundraisers than Obama in 2012

In all, Clinton’s 1,370 fundraisers — dubbed “Hillblazers” by the campaign — have bundled together at least $137 million from their friends, family members and business associates to build a money machine that surpasses the fundraising operation that twice helped elect Obama.

At least this article mentions Trump :roll eyes:

Lonely Trump
“If you have as many friends as Donald Trump does, you have a lonely life,” said Orin Kramer, a New York hedge fund manager who backed Obama and now is raising money for Clinton.

Kramer said the choice is obvious in 2016. “There hasn’t been a more qualified non-incumbent presidential candidate (than Clinton) in 60 years,” he said.

But the Liberal Media tells the plebs Trump is for big business, and those lemmings believe it. So sad.

 

[JoBBo]

Fortune Magazine.
Wall Street Spent $2 Billion Trying to Influence the 2016 Election

In what many would see as a bit of a surprise, Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., ranks in the top ten on the list, having received more than $2.8 million from the sector.

In this article, Fortune classifies donations from individual employees, who happen to work for banks, as "money from Wall Street banks"...

Quote: "Entities associated with the financial sector, which include both institutions and their individual employees, poured in nearly twice as much money as any other business sector. The distribution of money was slanted towards Republicans, with 55% of party-encoded contributions by PACs going to GOP candidates, compared to 45% for Democratic hopefuls."

If janitors and secretaries at Merril Lynch donate $27 each to Sanders, does this constitute a "bribe from the Big Banks"? Doubtful. In fact, Sanders managed to collect $202 million USD during the Democratic primaries. Even if he had received a cheque for $2.8 million USD directly from Goldman Sachs, which he absolutely did not, that is still less than 1.4 percent of the total amount he raised. Would anybody on this forum give up deeply held morals for an additional 1 - 2 percent of their annual salary?

In conclusion, calling Sanders a "Wall Street sellout" is beyond silly... You think his economic ideas would have ruined America? Fair enough. There is absolutely no need for silly and far-fetched character asassinations, though.

Trump is not even mentioned.

For unknown reasons, which we can only speculate about, the author only names candidates who specifically ran for either the Senate or the House of Representatives. (Sanders is on his list of Senate candidates.)

Bank of America contributed $1 million USD just for Trump's inauguration. Are you going to call him a fraud now too? Right. I did not think so...

 

[redrumloa]

Bank of America contributed $1 million USD just for Trump's inauguration. Are you going to call him a fraud now too? Right. I did not think so...

Source? According to mainstream sources leading up to the election, Trump's total haul from Wall Street was something like $43k.

 

[JoBBo]

Source?

This was at the top when I searched on DuckDuckGo.

From the article: "Pfizer, Dow Chemical and Bank of America gave $1 million apiece to the inaugural committee (...) More than two dozen companies have reported giving a little more than $7 million total through Dec. 31, a USA TODAY tally of recently filed lobbying reports show."
Also: "Bank of America, which donated $300,000 to Obama’s 2013 inauguration, gave $1 million on Dec. 19 for Trump’s festivities, records show."

In total, Trump's team raised about twice as much money from donors as had been raised for each of Obama's inaugurations.

According to mainstream sources leading up to the election, Trump's total haul from Wall Street was something like $43k.

Unlike Fortune Magazine, those mainstream sources clearly did not include donations from bank employees. More importantly, Trump-supporting SuperPACs have collected close to $100 million USD and they do not have to publicly disclose any donor information whatsoever... These days, thanks to SuperPACs and "dark money", knowing who gave directly to a campaign is not nearly as informative as it used to be.

 

[ilwrath]

The thing to remember is that there is a lot of misinformation on both sides. There are a lot of fake news items out there, and they're not just targeting one side.

The thought of an external 3rd party deliberately causing havok within the US isn't pleasant to contemplate. However, it is not completely out of the question.

 

[redrumloa]

This was at the top when I searched on DuckDuckGo.

From the article: "Pfizer, Dow Chemical and Bank of America gave $1 million apiece to the inaugural committee (...) More than two dozen companies have reported giving a little more than $7 million total through Dec. 31, a USA TODAY tally of recently filed lobbying reports show."
Also: "Bank of America, which donated $300,000 to Obama’s 2013 inauguration, gave $1 million on Dec. 19 for Trump’s festivities, records show."

In total, Trump's team raised about twice as much money from donors as had been raised for each of Obama's inaugurations.


Unlike Fortune Magazine, those mainstream sources clearly did not include donations from bank employees. More importantly, Trump-supporting SuperPACs have collected close to $100 million USD and they do not have to publicly disclose any donor information whatsoever... These days, thanks to SuperPACs and "dark money", knowing who gave directly to a campaign is not nearly as informative as it used to be.

Inaugural Committee donations are not the same thing as campaign donations.

 

[redrumloa]

The thought of an external 3rd party deliberately causing havok within the US isn't pleasant to contemplate. However, it is not completely out of the question.

Completely fake news. If you really think there is something there, read the related files in Vault7.

 

[redrumloa]

Flynn contact with Russia: Republicans join calls for investigation



Lying liar tells lies.
What a surprise.

Kremlin spokesman: Russian ambassador met with advisers to Clinton campaign too

Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman said in an interview Sunday that the Russian ambassador who met with Trump campaign officials also met with “people working in think tanks advising Hillary or advising people working for Hillary.”

“Well, if you look at some people connected with Hillary Clinton during her campaign, you would probably see that he had lots of meetings of that kind,” Dmitry Peskov told CNN “GPS” host Fareed Zakaria. “There are lots of specialists in politology, people working in think tanks advising Hillary or advising people working for Hillary.”

Peskov said it is the job of Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to meet with officials on both sides to talk about “bilateral relations.”

 

[Robert]

Tillerson used e-mail alias as Exxon CEO

This part is interesting in its own right:

Exxon Mobil.. whether the company misled investors by publicly arguing against the reality of climate change even though its executives knew the science was accurate.
... research the company undertook in the 1970s and 1980s, which affirmed the work of other climate scientists and showed that greenhouse gas emissions were causing climate change.

Exxon buried that work and spent the next couple decades claiming that the science was unclear..

Successfully too, given the ongoing level of ignorance.

.. although it has recently publicly acknowledged reality.

Something many of their marks continue to avoid.


But the reason for the story is:

.. former Exxon chairman and CEO (and current Secretary of State) Rex Tillerson used an e-mail alias of “Wayne Tracker” to communicate with other Exxon executives. Now the office wants those e-mails, too.

“Exxon has continuously delayed and obstructed the production of documents from its top executives and board members, which are crucial to OAG’s investigation into Exxon’s touted risk-management practices regarding climate change.”

Has the US SoS been deliberately lying about climate change for personal gain?
We don't know for sure yet but....

As an aside, "Wayne Tracker" is a belter of an alias.
(in my local dialect it translates roughly to "Child Follower")

 

[redrumloa]

As an aside, "Wayne Tracker" is a belter of an alias.
(in my local dialect it translates roughly to "Child Follower")

Oh dear.. At least it isn't Wayne Dresser.

 

[Robert]

I suppose one way to reduce the number of refugees is to facilitate and tacitly encourage their murder:

31 Somali refugees killed in helicopter attack off Yemen coast

 

[Robert]

This raised a smile:

1. “I didn’t say that. I was referring to ... a newspaper story with … a picture of Ted Cruz, his father, and Lee Harvey Oswald, having breakfast.”

In Trumpspeak, a speaker can never be accused of lying if he’s simply repeating the statements of others; it is the responsibility of those who make original claims to check for the accuracy and truthfulness of their assertions, not the person who repeats them—even if that person happens to be the most powerful person and speaker on the planet.

2. “But wiretapping was in quotes.”

Trumpspeak is figurative. It lives in quotation marks. This is not only because Trumpspeak works by repeating the statements of others (see point 1), but because it is gestural, performative. Trumpspeak is unscripted; words cascade forth only to be rearranged and endlessly massaged to say whatever is needed in the moment.

3. “Sweden. I make a statement, everyone goes crazy. The next day they have a massive riot, and death, and problems.”

In Trumpspeak, truth is not factual, it’s imagistic (this is related to point 2). Truthful statements do not necessarily offer an accurate account of events in the world. They provide an approximation or exaggeration of something that might, in theory, have occurred. Whether a terror attack in Sweden ever took place on the night named by the president is irrelevant. Nor should we care that the riot was not massive and there was no death. Close and maybe are good enough.

4. “Remember they said there was no way to get to 270? Well I ended up at 306…”

Trumpspeak confuses prophecy with honesty. The president accurately predicted his electoral victory and therefore must be a man of his word. Conversely, if a news organization failed to correctly anticipate the president’s win at the polls, Trumpspeak treats this as evidence of the falsity and mendacity of that organization’s reportage about all of reality.

5. “The country believes me.”

In Trumpspeak, belief is a signal of truth. If his supporters believe him, then what Trump is saying must be true. Conversely, if his detractors disbelieve him, this too is evidence that what he is saying must be true. In Trumpspeak, detractors claim Trump is a liar because they are his detractors; and in calling Trump a liar, they in fact are lying.

6. “I’m president, and you’re not.”

Finally, Trumpspeak is transactional. It places no independent value on truth. The value of speech is to be measured exclusively in terms of its effects. If a statement gets me closer to my goal, then it is valuable; if it does not, it is worthless.

Valuable statements, then, are true by virtue of the fact that they advance my interests. Statements that fail to do so are worthless and thus false. I was elected president, so that means that every statement that got me here has validity.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

This raised a smile:

Replace Trumpspeak with speech and it still holds up. Everyone is a sinner in the same ways (so we expect more from the president? Why? What about the last bunch of presidents even makes someone suspect that is even a reasonable expectation?) and anyone critiquing the details this way just looks nit-picky. That's what his supporters will see and this sort of "analysis" is just building some very thin ice for his opponents to stand on. Be far better to take the moral high ground than engage in micro-lawyering, but unfortunately the real high ground if off limits for the Dems as much as the Republicans because most of their good friends are crooks. Third party opportunity? Sure, it's always there, but this is the kind of smoke screen they always have to get their message through and, boy is it ever smokey these days!