The Trump Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it any wonder Trump hates the free press when that press keeps exposing his administration for what it is?

Trump's Russian connections and lies exposed:

"National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.

Flynn on Wednesday denied that he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Asked in an interview whether he had ever done so, he twice said, “No.”

On Thursday, Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

Flynn’s contacts with the ambassador attracted attention within the Obama administration because of the timing. U.S. intelligence agencies were then concluding that Russia had waged a cyber campaign designed in part to help elect Trump; his senior adviser on national security matters was discussing the potential consequences for Moscow, officials said.

The talks were part of a series of contacts between Flynn and Kislyak that began before the Nov. 8 election and continued during the transition, officials said. In a recent interview, Kislyak confirmed that he had communicated with Flynn by text message, by phone and in person, but declined to say whether they had discussed sanctions.

The emerging details contradict public statements by incoming senior administration officials including Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect. They acknowledged only a handful of text messages and calls exchanged between Flynn and Kislyak late last year and denied that either ever raised the subject of sanctions.

“They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence said in an interview with CBS News last month, noting that he had spoken with Flynn about the matter. Pence also made a more sweeping assertion, saying there had been no contact between members of Trump’s team and Russia during the campaign. To suggest otherwise, he said, “is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy.”

Neither of those assertions is consistent with the fuller account of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who had access to reports from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies that routinely monitor the communications of Russian diplomats. Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

All of those officials said Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.

“Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” said a former official.

A third official put it more bluntly, saying that either Flynn had misled Pence or that Pence misspoke. An administration official stressed that Pence made his comments based on his conversation with Flynn.. The sanctions in question have so far remained in place.

The nature of Flynn’s pre-inauguration message to Kislyak triggered debate among officials in the Obama administration and intelligence agencies over whether Flynn had violated a law against unauthorized citizens interfering in U.S. disputes with foreign governments, according to officials familiar with that debate. Those officials were already alarmed by what they saw as a Russian assault on the U.S. election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...c2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.236324a6aa91
 
Not of the White House, but of the deep state. That's a difference. Note also that I have not made any theories of who are the particular rulers of this deep state. The observable fact is that there is a large amount of well-coordinated lies in the Western media.
The fact I observed was that you had a strangely false idea of what would be unusual or surprising in Western media - you didn't know what was normal or common, in a particular way.

There is a great deal of coordinated lying in the Western media - mostly lies by universal omission or emphasis, but simple assertions of untruths are also found. Knowing that doesn't mean you can spot them, or differentiate them from incompetence and error, or avoid being taken in by them. And it doesn't mean they are specifically and deliberately planted - news media managers know what to do, or they would never been hired for their jobs.
You want to say that all those republicans which have openly opposed Trump and openly supported Clinton were inventions of Breitbart or so?
Of course not. I simply point out that there weren't very many of them, their influence on the Republican Party, Republican voter, and typical Republican Congressman, was negligible if not actually favoring Trump, and they have almost entirely come around since the election - look at the votes on the cabinet picks, the defense of his Executive Orders, and so forth. None of them are supporting any Democrat or Democratic initiative now, and there is no reason to suppose they would have backed Clinton on anything after she had won election. The Republican Party is now and for the immediate future unified and supporting Trump, exactly as predicted by the cynical Lefties a year ago and more - and he's not making it easy.
Of course, whose who hate Hillary, for whatever reasons, would be stupid if they would not try to use her weak points. Once she looks like a maniac, they would be stupid not to do everything to use this impression. So, if they use that she looks like a maniac in their propaganda, it does not mean that she does not look like a maniac. Nobody has tried such a campaign against Ron Paul, because it would have been hopeless
They invented her weak points. And as good marketers, when they did that they focused on her strengths - presenting her as weak exactly where she is strong and her opponent is weak: which was in her sanity and calm, policy-wonk, compromising, conservative, triangulating, wishy-washy approach to everything. That's standard propaganda, standard advertising technique, applied to negative ads.
(They attacked Gore on his tech savvy and comprehension of complex weapons and trade issues compared with W - "said he invented the Internet". They attacked Kerry on his war record and military experience compared with W - "wrote his own medal recommendation". They attacked Obama on his education, intelligence, and articulate speech compared with McCain/Palin - "needs a teleprompter" - and on his demeanor and ability to relate to regular folks compared with Romney - "arrogant, elitist, snobbish". )

That's how they roll, that faction. It works.

They haven't been gunning for Ron Paul for thirty years, because he's no threat to them and never has been. If he were ever to threaten them, they would have no problem launching a similar campaign against one of his strengths - whether you would fall as easily and heavily for that one I don't know.
Don't forget also that I have used there three independent bits of information
They weren't independent. They weren't information. And they used you, not the other way around.

Look at, for example, the "sky is falling say liberals" meme being repeated here, aimed at simple litanies of events and accounts of actual Trump administration behavior. Those folks are being used, right?
 
I posted this in another thread but thought it would suit here also

It's from the NT News newspaper in Darwin Australia

From here this is what a Democratic Party meeting looks like
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20170211_092138~01~01.jpg
    IMG_20170211_092138~01~01.jpg
    52.2 KB · Views: 2
There is a great deal of coordinated lying in the Western media - mostly lies by universal omission or emphasis, but simple assertions of untruths are also found. Knowing that doesn't mean you can spot them, or differentiate them from incompetence and error, or avoid being taken in by them. And it doesn't mean they are specifically and deliberately planted - news media managers know what to do, or they would never been hired for their jobs.
Of course, the presstitutes know that they have to lie and are eager to lie. But, sorry, one can distinguish incompetence and error from organized lies. Incompetence is accidental, and does not create big well-coordinated campaigns. Then, today it is quite easy to identify them. The usual criteria of propaganda, in combination with all the Western press doing the same, works quite nicely.
Of course not. I simply point out that there weren't very many of them, their influence on the Republican Party, Republican voter, and typical Republican Congressman, was negligible if not actually favoring Trump, and they have almost entirely come around since the election - look at the votes on the cabinet picks, the defense of his Executive Orders, and so forth. None of them are supporting any Democrat or Democratic initiative now, and there is no reason to suppose they would have backed Clinton on anything after she had won election. The Republican Party is now and for the immediate future unified and supporting Trump, exactly as predicted by the cynical Lefties a year ago and more - and he's not making it easy.
No problem with this. It was simply my impression that there was a lot of this republican support during the election campaign. But it may have been, indeed, false, given that I have not cared that much about this point, so that I may have been a victim of the pro-Clinton media campaign in Germany. They have liked to present such things, even republican XYZ supporting Clinton because Trump is so horrible. The point of making a big media campaign for Clinton in Germany I have not understood, but the German mass media were unique.
They invented her weak points. And as good marketers, when they did that they focused on her strengths - presenting her as weak exactly where she is strong and her opponent is weak: which was in her sanity and calm, policy-wonk, compromising, conservative, triangulating, wishy-washy approach to everything. That's standard propaganda, standard advertising technique, applied to negative ads.
(They attacked Gore on his tech savvy and comprehension of complex weapons and trade issues compared with W - "said he invented the Internet". They attacked Kerry on his war record and military experience compared with W - "wrote his own medal recommendation". They attacked Obama on his education, intelligence, and articulate speech compared with McCain/Palin - "needs a teleprompter" - and on his demeanor and ability to relate to regular folks compared with Romney - "arrogant, elitist, snobbish". )
This may work sometimes too.
They weren't independent. They weren't information. And they used you, not the other way around.
A video showing facial expressions is information. The words used are information. That Clinton was supporting the Libya and Syria wars is information. All this as much information as possible in a world full of war propaganda. Again, my technique is to extract information from propaganda. Telling me that this information is coming from propaganda sources is, therefore, not really impressive, because I already know it. And I also know that this job is difficult, and that one can fail. What would be helpful would be other information, which would show that the information I have extracted is nonetheless wrong.

In the case of Clinton's facial expression this would have been possible. I have seen later another video with Clinton showing her, as some sort of joke, moving one eye with the other one remaining fixed. I have never seen such a thing before, it looked very strange, but such a rare ability also means that her facial expression may look strange in other situations too, and this can be easily misinterpreted as looking like a maniac. So, this bit of information was simply misleading. If you have known this, you could have simply told me about this, but unfortunately you repeated all the time your "this is propaganda" meme which has no value.
 
A video showing facial expressions is information. The words used are information.
Not without the context you never bothered to acquire. Meaning is always from context.
And you knew very well you didn't have that context - you told me you didn't need it. You got played.
But, sorry, one can distinguish incompetence and error from organized lies. Incompetence is accidental, and does not create big well-coordinated campaigns
It's not that kind of incompetence, in the major US media - it's not randomly screwing up. There has been a selection process, whereby those who do not keep the corporate line first and foremost in their reportage, and their errors etc, biased accordingly, are not around for long. After a few years of culling - in this case if memory serves it took almost a full generation, starting sometime during the Vietnam War and locking in sometime in the mid '90s - the powers that be do not have to "organize" much of anything. Everybody who has a job knows their job, new people are trained in accordingly, management prunes any stuff that overgrows.

This "both sides"schtick American major media has been parroting, for example, as the dumpster that the Republican Party became in the late '90s caught fire and started to blanket the nation with foul smoke: it's not that all those pundits and anchors and "journalists" got orders from anybody (ok, the Fox ones did, but not the others), it's their genuine approach - it's the way they have come to think their job should be done. And those who did not internalize the right attitude - they don't get the good jobs, they don't get access, they get hit hard by any little mistakes they make, they don't last.
The point of making a big media campaign for Clinton in Germany I have not understood, but the German mass media were unique.
They may be a bit touchy regarding fascism, in Germany. Trump isn't exactly hiding what he's up to, after all.
 
It's not that kind of incompetence, in the major US media - it's not randomly screwing up. There has been a selection process, whereby those who do not keep the corporate line first and foremost in their reportage, and their errors etc, biased accordingly, are not around for long. After a few years of culling - in this case if memory serves it took almost a full generation, starting sometime during the Vietnam War and locking in sometime in the mid '90s - the powers that be do not have to "organize" much of anything. Everybody who has a job knows their job, new people are trained in accordingly, management prunes any stuff that overgrows.
Ok, but this is simply the job competence of a presstitute. Where is what you name incompetence?
They may be a bit touchy regarding fascism, in Germany. Trump isn't exactly hiding what he's up to, after all.
The Bandera fascists were hiding it even much much less, with openly Nazi symbols quite common, but nonetheless the German media were unified in favor of them. And they were aware of that fascism. They have quite systematically deleted antifascist comments. Ok, only anti-Bandera-fascist comments. Otherwise "anti-fascist" posts blaming whatever democratic right-wing party "fascist" are welcome. Been there, seen my posts deleted.
 
#corruption | #WhatTheyVotedFor

Our first compromised POTUS.

But Joe, that's #WhatTheyVotedFor, all sixty-two million, nine hundred eighty-five thousand, one hundred six of them.

Do you remember the -ism fights of the eighties and nineties, when a Republican would say something incredibly stupid, and someone else would call it out for being supremacist, and then we would have this weird societal discussion about jumping to conclusions and you can't call someone racist for that, and all that?

Yeah, there wasn't really any question about it, this time.

The Russian question was also pretty clear, but, you know, there's just no way they're gonna let that dirty cunt be president, and that's not sexist, dammitall!

At any rate, yeah. Nearly sixty-three million of our fellow Americans wanted this.

And the prospect of a traitor president? Well, that's #WhatTheyVotedFor. This is their chosen statement, the ethics and character they wish to project to the world. People who voted for Donald Trump voted against the United States of America. They voted against the Constitution. They voted to harm their neighbors. And it wasn't an accident when they did.
 
Last edited:
At any rate, yeah. Nearly sixty-three million of our fellow Americans wanted this.
This is based on the presumption that Russian interference hasn't completely screwed the election results.
I know some claim that they could not effectively hack the booths etc but I would be confident there would be other areas in the vote collection chain that they could...
The secret dossier may have considerably more to it than just blackmail and mention of salacious video footage etc...

also who is to say that there is not more than one secret dossier?
A lot of intelligence can be gathered in a very short amount of time these days...

So we may find that we can never know how many voted for Trump or for that matter Clinton as the result, once revealed as corrupted, may be scrambled egg. Unable to be de-corrupted
 
This is based on the presumption that Russian interference hasn't completely screwed the election results.

Barring verifiable evidence that the actual voting process and count has been corrupted, Donald Trump has been fairly and properly elected president according to procedure. Americans live by caveat emptor, and now we might wonder how many of who and where will die for the sake of that attitude.

Buried in the American mythography is a tattered shred of honor, that we are all supposed to be on the same team. There is some question whether voting for Donald Trump actually broke that presupposition; between the foreign influence, the monied influence, the manner of corruption to make all those years of Republican bawling about this, that, and the other seem like the sick joke it always was, and the conservative thesis about how government just doesn't work, the effect of voting for Donald Trump is to vote against our nation, the Constitution that empowers it, and the People who are it. That is to say, more and more it seems an actual anti-American vote. And it would be a lot easier to leave that term in the basket of hyperbole except, well, we could kind of see it coming, and as near as anyone else can tell, it is #WhatTheyVotedFor.

Meanwhile, we see American public officials in local, state, and federal office refusing to walk the Nuremberg Trail.

And, you know, between the Nuclear Football and the idea that, say, nine people just rolled on the administration, hanging three officials including the Vice President of the United States out in the wind on NSA Flynn―whose tenure is collapsing↱―it would seem that even the political hands are moving to protect the country.

Honestly, I figured we were stuck in this until at least the '18 midterm, and then the months afterward to get the Democrats sworn in and Trump impeached. At least. As in, best-case.

The last week has shaken that outlook, which relies on some pretext of the society walking through some manner of process, ritual, or performance as we do this. We might recall Kuttner↱, over the weekend:

There are already plenty of grounds to impeach Donald Trump. The really interesting question is when key Republicans will decide that he’s more of a liability than an asset.

If Trump keeps sucking up to Vladimir Putin, it could happen sooner than you think.

‡​

So here is an impeachment scenario that looks increasingly plausible:

Republicans stick with Trump for a while, as he delivers goodies like deregulation of gas, oil and Wall Street, tax cuts, school privatization, gutting of labor protection, and at least one rightwing Supreme Court justice. But at some point, the GOP leadership concludes that he is just too bizarre, too much of a hazard for setting off wars, both trade wars and hot ones, and too much of a risk for 2018 ....

.... The wager is that Republicans would then get credit for ridding America of an unstable would-be dictator, and they could regroup under Pence in time to limit damage in the 2018 election. Trump was never their guy anyway.

It's an interesting sketch but that's the thing: Just how bad? How much damage, and to what? To be more realistic, okay, so let us follow Mr. Kuttner's model; the question of thresholds can best be described in terms of the 2020 election: When we replace President Pence with a Democrat, and give that new Democratic president a split Congress, just what mess will that executive be cleaning up?

An here's interesting question: If we're lucky, the damage will be mostly human.

I know, it's insane, isn't it?

But that's the thing. I do believe the Republic will survive Donald Trump. And I can certainly be wrong about that. In either case, the human toll of a Trump presidency is expected to be larger than other executives. And if we're lucky, I'm right, and the Republic does survive Donald Trump, and the human toll doesn't keep getting worse.

I'm pretty sure President Trump does not wish to lose the Republic; I cannot promise the same of others in his policy influence universe, namely Steve Bannon.

Still, though, it's really hard to read how fast everything is falling apart for President Tool. Trump. President Trump.

(ahem!)

Trump.

Right. Anyway.
____________________

Notes:

Kuttner, Robert. "The March To Impeachment". The Huffington Post. 5 February 2017. HuffingtonPost.com. 11 February 2017. http://huff.to/2khfm4K

Vogel, Kenneth P. and Josh Dawsey. "CIA freezes out top Flynn aide". Politico. 10 February 2017. Politco.com. 11 February 2017. http://politi.co/2lDkFK8
 
There are already plenty of grounds to impeach Donald Trump.
and that is the most puzzling thing... yes there are many reasons to impeach Trump.
let's repeat that:
There are many reasons to impeach Trump. The republicans know it, the democrats know it, the whole f*ckin' Global family knows it...

and the Republicans will still know it after the issue finally gets resolved with serious consequences for their moral bankruptcy to follow.

At some point the USA Republic will actually become a priority rather than the petty republican partisanship currently being displayed.
 
Honestly, I figured we were stuck in this until at least the '18 midterm, and then the months afterward to get the Democrats sworn in and Trump impeached. At least. As in, best-case.


and that is the most puzzling thing... yes there are many reasons to impeach Trump.
let's repeat that:
There are many reasons to impeach Trump. The republicans know it, the democrats know it


Just EXACTLY how far out of Kansas are you two?

Can you see Russia in the rear vision mirror?
 
.. The wager is that Republicans would then get credit for ridding America of an unstable would-be dictator, and they could regroup under Pence in time to limit damage in the 2018 election. Trump was never their guy anyway.
They'll have to wait until their voting base has turned on Trump. If they even try to get rid of him before then, they lose - Trump captured the Republican voter, hearts and minds. So they would need a long and serious media campaign of vilification, on the media the Republican core voter trusts.

And if Trump can arrange a war that looks good to that base, it's game over - he's got the Republican endorsement and backing as long as he wants it
 
say something like this happens at the White House , an indefinite sit in...?
What happens then ? Call in an airstrike?
582790b02f11b.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top