View Full Version : Trump is POTUS - His First 100 Days
Perhaps the biggest reason for Putin to favor Trump over Clinton was the issue of sanctions placed in 2014 against the Russians over their incursions into Ukraine and Crimea. Clinton favored a continuation of those sanctions; Trump was a little more circumspect when it came to sanctions.
I don't know if Russian hacking "influenced" the election. Honestly, I really don't care unless it can be shown that they manipulated individual votes. As far as I'm concerned, foreign entities trying to influence public opinion is all par for the course in the daily intelligence/counter-intelligence game. We certainly do it.
Where I get a little nervous is when I hear people suggesting that Trump can somehow make Russia our friend. As long as Putin rules Russia, they will be at best our competitor, and more likely an overt enemy. Putin is a megalomaniac who blames the US for Russia's post-Cold War decline. He would like nothing more to restore the former Soviet Union (under his rule, of course) and see the US marginalized. Trump would be wise to not underestimate Putin's capacity for deceit.
100% agree. And it's not like Obama wasn't trying to "influence" lots of things in Ukraine right before that blew up.
And Putin is certainly looking to restore the Union, I mean the Federation. We need to put cards on the table, Russia screwed us in Vietnam and weakened us, we paid them back in Afghanistan. Pretty much it's a wash.
We can continue to back stab each other to neither benefit or we can simply work together where we have common enemies and both prosper from the shared effort. Russia can continue to support Syria, I guess we get Iraq and we decide who gets influence where so we don't step on toes.
We don't need to be best friends, we don't even need to send Christmas cards, but we can ratchet down the animosity and accept the fact that Putin is going to do what is best to restore Russia to super power status with or without us. Honestly, it would be nice to have somebody who can contribute to the UN security games we like to play.
We no longer have a flashpoint in Berlin, no reason to create on in the Middle East like Obamaphone did.
Agree 100%. When the Chinese come to party it would be good to have Russia on our side.
Amen, amen, and amen.
If you are preparing to lead the free world and have time to "discuss life" with Kanye West, then you are doing it wrong. Granted something needed to take the public eye away from Tillerson and Thursday's cancelled presser.
However, you would think that he could have come up with something more intelligent than discussing the meaning of life with Kanye West. Perhaps he could have sent Ivanka out to bite the head off a kitten. Or, have Donny Jr. (or whichever kid already has the slicked back hair like American Psycho) parade out a baby seal on a leash, write the word "Environment" on its head in red lipstick, don a black leather jacket, and then bludgeon it with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire. Either of those would have been more meaningful than a meeting with Kanye West.
Transition grade drops to a C+.
If you are preparing to lead the free world and have time to "discuss life" with Kanye West, then you are doing it wrong. Granted something needed to take the public eye away from Tillerson and Thursday's cancelled presser.
However, you would think that he could have come up with something more intelligent than discussing the meaning of life with Kanye West. Perhaps he could have sent Ivanka out to bite the head off a kitten. Or, have Donny Jr. (or whichever kid already has the slicked back hair like American Psycho) parade out a baby seal on a leash, write the word "Environment" on its head in red lipstick, don a black leather jacket, and then bludgeon it with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire. Either of those would have been more meaningful than a meeting with Kanye West.
Transition grade drops to a C+.
That's the worst criticism you can come up with? Given the Mattis appointment, I don't think spending a day with a irrelevant pop celebrity even knocks him from an A+ to an A. Maybe Ivanka wanted his autograph but didn't want to actually do a photo op with him. Maybe Kanye was there to get a "read on Trump for his peeps." Maybe they were there to compare notes on "snatching vag" and debate the most efficient method. Who actually gives a f?
Spurholder
12-14-16, 06:40
If you are preparing to lead the free world and have time to "discuss life" with Kanye West, then you are doing it wrong. Granted something needed to take the public eye away from Tillerson and Thursday's cancelled presser.
However, you would think that he could have come up with something more intelligent than discussing the meaning of life with Kanye West. Perhaps he could have sent Ivanka out to bite the head off a kitten. Or, have Donny Jr. (or whichever kid already has the slicked back hair like American Psycho) parade out a baby seal on a leash, write the word "Environment" on its head in red lipstick, don a black leather jacket, and then bludgeon it with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire. Either of those would have been more meaningful than a meeting with Kanye West.
Transition grade drops to a C+.
How many males 17-21 look up to guys like Kanye West? Honesty, him meeting with DiCaprio was less meaningful, IMHO.
Russia hasn't forgot they lost the cold war and went through a huge financial collapse. I remember Putin remarking on that specifically, that if ever there was a time to reach across it was then. They floundered pretty hard for a long time. Course he got rich out of that so he can't complain but he does have a point- I think as long as we can share a mutual respect for eachother and share common interests when possible, that we should at least try. I'd rather deal with Russians than Chinese.
The huge financial collapse was on them, entirely, as a result of 50+ years of failed economic policies secondary to socialism and trying to keep up with the Joneses (Reagan). Of course they have sour grapes and blame us, but it's not our fault they can't manage their economy.
I agree it's better to deal with the Russians than the Chinese, and if we were smart, we would use each advantageously against each other. They do it to us.
I don't know if Russian hacking "influenced" the election. Honestly, I really don't care unless it can be shown that they manipulated individual votes. As far as I'm concerned, foreign entities trying to influence public opinion is all par for the course in the daily intelligence/counter-intelligence game. We certainly do it.
Where I get a little nervous is when I hear people suggesting that Trump can somehow make Russia our friend. As long as Putin rules Russia, they will be at best our competitor, and more likely an overt enemy. Putin is a megalomaniac who blames the US for Russia's post-Cold War decline. He would like nothing more to restore the former Soviet Union (under his rule, of course) and see the US marginalized. Trump would be wise to not underestimate Putin's capacity for deceit.
It absolutely baffles me that the media could be shrieking about Russia having an organized effort to hack US computer systems. Is the level of naivete really that high among those enlightened pundits? They don't think that every country in the world hacks us, or tries to, on a daily basis? They don't think that we do the same thing? Isn't this kind of thing a major function of both the CIA and NSA? Why has no one pointed out that such now-demonstrated hacking efforts made Hillary's server-in-my-basement email adventure all the more egregious and damaging to the US?
I don't have any particular insight into Russia's designs, but I'm certainly suspicious of Putin's goals. I'm don't have a particular objection to closer ties with Russia, but I too remain hopeful that Trump won't be buffaloed by Putin. I honestly can't imagine that he'd ever get repeatedly spanked by Putin as much as Obama has.
Eurodriver
12-14-16, 07:49
That's the worst criticism you can come up with? Given the Mattis appointment, I don't think spending a day with a irrelevant pop celebrity even knocks him from an A+ to an A. Maybe Ivanka wanted his autograph but didn't want to actually do a photo op with him. Maybe Kanye was there to get a "read on Trump for his peeps." Maybe they were there to compare notes on "snatching vag" and debate the most efficient method. Who actually gives a f?
A+ response to a ridiculous grade-giver.
I think 8 years of constant criticism of the federal govt has brought us to a point where every single thing POTUS does is going to be looked at like it's a subversive attempt to destroy America.
Shit. I'd love to meet Kanye. Body like Beyoncé but face like Andre. Ughhhh.
Outlander Systems
12-14-16, 07:59
#MossackFonseca
They don't think that we do the same thing?
A+ response to a ridiculous grade-giver.
I think 8 years of constant criticism of the federal govt has brought us to a point where every single thing POTUS does is going to be looked at like it's a subversive attempt to destroy America.
Shit. I'd love to meet Kanye. Body like Beyoncé but face like Andre. Ughhhh.
Kanye is a racist sociopath. Perhaps the stupidity of the past 8 years has numbed your brain to the stupidity of our President discussing life with this joke. No, I'm not saying that Trump is stupid. But giving an audience and platform to a jackass is very stupid.
My point is that Trump has been doing an above average job with appointments like Mattis and Sessions (to a lesser extent). However, his choices for Sec. Treasury, Chair of National Economic Counsel, and Sec State should make your head scratch if you were hoping for a US-centered economic policy - that is, unless it is too numb thinking about Kanye.
All of those appointments are big government, big spending, globalist progressives. They literally could have been Hillary appointments and nobody would be surprised.
If you are preparing to lead the free world and have time to "discuss life" with Kanye West, then you are doing it wrong. Granted something needed to take the public eye away from Tillerson and Thursday's cancelled presser.
However, you would think that he could have come up with something more intelligent than discussing the meaning of life with Kanye West. Perhaps he could have sent Ivanka out to bite the head off a kitten. Or, have Donny Jr. (or whichever kid already has the slicked back hair like American Psycho) parade out a baby seal on a leash, write the word "Environment" on its head in red lipstick, don a black leather jacket, and then bludgeon it with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire. Either of those would have been more meaningful than a meeting with Kanye West.
Transition grade drops to a C+.
I'm a bit dismayed he'd allow that d head near his office at all, but as long as he does his job, he can have HC herself over for poker for all I care. End of the day, they're both reality TV stars with a common connection in entertainment. We are now all part of Trumps grand reality TV show it appears. Should be interesting.
Shit. I'd love to meet Kanye. Body like Beyoncé but face like Andre. Ughhhh.
You know that was Ice Cube right?
He wants to chill with Kanye, have at it. I think Kanye is a douche first class, but whatevs. It's not like there has not been precedent...I think Clooney, Streisand, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon have all hung out with elected pres/VPs.
Eurodriver
12-14-16, 10:02
You know that was Ice Cube right?
Nephew how you think I'm gonna remember that line but not know who dropped it lol
It just rhymes with Kanye.
He wants to chill with Kanye, have at it. I think Kanye is a douche first class, but whatevs. It's not like there has not been precedent...I think Clooney, Streisand, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon have all hung out with elected pres/VPs.
Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner. Even from an anthropological point of view, Kanye is at least more entertaining than the rest of these dolts. Unless Sarandon showed me her tits of course. ;)
Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner. Even from an anthropological point of view, Kanye is at least more entertaining than the rest of these dolts. Unless Sarandon showed me her tits of course. ;)
Umm, you are dating yourself. Susan Sarandon is 70. That means her dirty pillows are down to her kneecaps.
Doc Safari
12-14-16, 10:51
Trump meeting Kanye? Just rock star meeting rock star...nothing more. Gives Trump street cred with the black political factions while disarming yet another potential source of opposition (like inviting Romney disarmed the NeverTrump Republicans). Trump is crazy like a fox.
Umm, you are dating yourself. Susan Sarandon is 70. That means her dirty pillows are down to her kneecaps.
Don't care, would juggle 8/10. My current crush is Helen Mirren. Rawrr... :)
Kanye is a racist sociopath. Perhaps the stupidity of the past 8 years has numbed your brain to the stupidity of our President discussing life with this joke. No, I'm not saying that Trump is stupid. But giving an audience and platform to a jackass is very stupid.
My point is that Trump has been doing an above average job with appointments like Mattis and Sessions (to a lesser extent). However, his choices for Sec. Treasury, Chair of National Economic Counsel, and Sec State should make your head scratch if you were hoping for a US-centered economic policy - that is, unless it is too numb thinking about Kanye.
All of those appointments are big government, big spending, globalist progressives. They literally could have been Hillary appointments and nobody would be surprised.
Hillary would never appoint a "pro Russian" Sec State. Trump did because he plans on working WITH the Russians.
Also RIGHT NOW Trump isn't President yet, he's not doing important crap like deciding how to get a bill passed right now. So he's prepping his team and that's about it. Hanging out with celebrities and getting his picture in the paper is the other thing he does. The Kanye thing means "jack and shit", it's not like he appointed him to anything.
Trump said he wanted to be "everybodies President" do you understand what that means literally and politically? What do you imagine would happen if Trump said "Kanye?!? Ef him, I don't have time for anyone like him." It's not like Trump flew to Kanye's house to meet him.
Don't care, would juggle 8/10. My current crush is Helen Mirren. Rawrr... :)
Dude, Dame Mirren in her prime, Yeowza!
I certainly wouldn't object to a no denture adventure.
Hillary would never appoint a "pro Russian" Sec State. Trump did because he plans on working WITH the Russians.
Also RIGHT NOW Trump isn't President yet, he's not doing important crap like deciding how to get a bill passed right now. So he's prepping his team and that's about it. Hanging out with celebrities and getting his picture in the paper is the other thing he does. The Kanye thing means "jack and shit", it's not like he appointed him to anything.
Trump said he wanted to be "everybodies President" do you understand what that means literally and politically? What do you imagine would happen if Trump said "Kanye?!? Ef him, I don't have time for anyone like him." It's not like Trump flew to Kanye's house to meet him.
Wasn't it Mike Tyson that said only Trump treated him and his family like human beings, while the rest of the upper crust elite looked right through him?
As for your first point, spot on. Obama talking to Putin about "more flexibility after the elections", all the while planning to cut his throat on Syria. Obama actually thought he'd get something for nothing like he has with the RINO's here? Pfft, Putin saw clean through him! That was a boy trying to play a man's game, not even understanding how beyond his depth he was. That's why Putin mad him look like a little bitch over the past few years.
While Putin would love nothing more than to see America fail, he's a shrewd player and he plays the long game. Better to have an uneasy, on again off again alliance with someone you don't trust than have them as an openly belligerent foe who doesn't respect you. :(
Hillary would never appoint a "pro Russian" Sec State. Trump did because he plans on working WITH the Russians.
Also RIGHT NOW Trump isn't President yet, he's not doing important crap like deciding how to get a bill passed right now. So he's prepping his team and that's about it. Hanging out with celebrities and getting his picture in the paper is the other thing he does. The Kanye thing means "jack and shit", it's not like he appointed him to anything.
Trump said he wanted to be "everybodies President" do you understand what that means literally and politically? What do you imagine would happen if Trump said "Kanye?!? Ef him, I don't have time for anyone like him." It's not like Trump flew to Kanye's house to meet him.
You may think that is what he is doing. I certainly hope that is not what he thinks that he is doing.
On the Russians, there is going to be very little working with them as long as Putin is in charge. Sure, we will have some symbolic collaborations, but get ready to spend the next eight years pulling knives from our back if Trump thinks that Russia wants to work with us.
As for being everyone's President - that is not going to happen either. The left has already declared Trump illegitimate (hence the recounts and crap about Russian hacking). Besides, Kanye is a spokesman for himself - he has NOTHING productive to say to the average kid growing up in South Chicago. If Trump wants to reach the black community then he should have a media appearance with credible black athletes (the ones who actually give a crap about their community), cops, firefighters, and meat eaters from the 75th and Teams. The black community is in desperate need of people like that who care more about others than themselves; Kanye ain't that person.
Doc Safari
12-14-16, 14:36
If Trump wants to reach the black community then he should have a media appearance with credible black athletes (the ones who actually give a crap about their community), cops, firefighters, and meat eaters from the 75th and Teams. The black community is in desperate need of people like that who care more about others than themselves; Kanye ain't that person.
How about Jim Brown? He met with Trump and has been singing Trump's praises all day.
How about Jim Brown? He met with Trump and has been singing Trump's praises all day.
Yep. That was a step in the right direction.
For a little perspective, I actually think that Trump is doing an above average job in getting the right people in the correct positions. Hence a grade of C+. He would be excellent had he chosen some small/domestic business leaders for his economic and foreign policy team instead of banking globalists. That, and tell the BLM mouthpiece and his goon squad to F-off.
Doc Safari
12-14-16, 15:00
It's important to remember that Trump also operates in a reality where he has to get his cabinet appointees confirmed....so.....mainstream appointees are more likely to be approved by Congress than perceived "far-out" nominees.
It's important to remember that Trump also operates in a reality where he has to get his cabinet appointees confirmed....so.....mainstream appointees are more likely to be approved by Congress than perceived "far-out" nominees.
All of jokers that I mentioned (Sec Treas, State; Chair NEC) will all face rocky confermations. Yes, most if not all will eventually be confirmed, but expect an ugly battle. That is because he decided to nominate guys like Steve Mnuchin to Sec Treas who actually helped to develop lovely things like mortgage backed securities when he was an partner at Goldman. So, a guy who had his fingerprints all over the financial crisis may now be in charge of the Treasury. Bravo.
Trump had an ample supply of economic advisers who would have sailed through the confirmation process. Personally, I hope that someone drives a stake thru the heart of guys like Mnuchin during the hearings. Do I think it will happen? Nope.
All of jokers that I mentioned (Sec Treas, State; Chair NEC) will all face rocky confermations. Yes, most if not all will eventually be confirmed, but expect an ugly battle. That is because he decided to nominate guys like Steve Mnuchin to Sec Treas who actually helped to develop lovely things like mortgage backed securities when he was an partner at Goldman. So, a guy who had his fingerprints all over the financial crisis may now be in charge of the Treasury. Bravo.
Trump had an ample supply of economic advisers who would have sailed through the confirmation process. Personally, I hope that someone drives a stake thru the heart of guys like Mnuchin during the hearings. Do I think it will happen? Nope.
Of the apps so far, that one is pure fail if for no other reason than how it appears. On the defense/national security side, seems a solid line up so far. On the economics side, not too surprisingly, not so much. Some will attempt to do a "who knows more about the crash of 08 and things like mortgage backed securities and how to avoid/fix than the guy who was part of it?" type angle, but it does not wash for me. So, some good choices, some WTF choices, and some fail. Guess we well see how it all melds together for us little people. I'm still just happy to never say the words "President Clinton" as long as I live. I'm going to remain hopeful until given a solid reason to lose hope on this wacky ride we're all on.
Doc Safari
12-14-16, 16:45
I'm still just happy to never say the words "President Clinton" as long as I live. I'm going to remain hopeful until given a solid reason to lose hope on this wacky ride we're all on.
Reminds me of that joke where the guy goes up to the guard at the White House gate and asks to speak to President Hillary Clinton.
The guard says, "Hillary Clinton is not the president."
A few minutes later, the guy goes back to the guard and asks to speak to President Hillary Clinton.
The guard reiterates, "Hillary Clinton is not the president."
Finally, a third time the guy goes up to the guard and asks to speak to President Hillary Clinton.
The guard, exasperated, says, "Look, Buddy, I've told you twice that Hillary Clinton is not the President. Do you not understand?"
"Of course I understand that Hillary Clinton is not the president," the guy says, "I just like hearing you say it."
Reminds me of that joke where the guy goes up to the guard at the White House gate and asks to speak to President Hillary Clinton.
The guard says, "Hillary Clinton is not the president."
A few minutes later, the guy goes back to the guard and asks to speak to President Hillary Clinton.
The guard reiterates, "Hillary Clinton is not the president."
Finally, a third time the guy goes up to the guard and asks to speak to President Hillary Clinton.
The guard, exasperated, says, "Look, Buddy, I've told you twice that Hillary Clinton is not the President. Do you not understand?"
"Of course I understand that Hillary Clinton is not the president," the guy says, "I just like hearing you say it."
I'm betting those who guard the WH, SS, etc are also happy to never hear those words. I don't know how they feel about DJT, but how they feel about HC is well known and long standing and no secret at this point. I wonder if there would have been an exodus of SS agents had she won?
You may think that is what he is doing. I certainly hope that is not what he thinks that he is doing.
On the Russians, there is going to be very little working with them as long as Putin is in charge. Sure, we will have some symbolic collaborations, but get ready to spend the next eight years pulling knives from our back if Trump thinks that Russia wants to work with us.
Once again, I don't think we are going to be BFFs or anything. But perhaps coming to agreements in the middle east about who is going to have influence in what country would be better than what we are doing now. It would also be nice to be on something less than a cold war posture with Russia.
Like it or not, Putin is rebuilding a super power, we can either accept that and find the common ground that exists when it exists or we can screw it up like Obama has been doing for the last 8 years.
Doc Safari
12-14-16, 17:28
I can see Trump telling the Russians, "You can have Crimea since it was originally part of Russia, but you gotta move the stuff out of Kaliningrad."
Of the apps so far, that one is pure fail if for no other reason than how it appears. On the defense/national security side, seems a solid line up so far. On the economics side, not too surprisingly, not so much. Some will attempt to do a "who knows more about the crash of 08 and things like mortgage backed securities and how to avoid/fix than the guy who was part of it?" type angle, but it does not wash for me. So, some good choices, some WTF choices, and some fail. Guess we well see how it all melds together for us little people. I'm still just happy to never say the words "President Clinton" as long as I live. I'm going to remain hopeful until given a solid reason to lose hope on this wacky ride we're all on.
It's not just national security, his energy picks are also solid. Hell, the irony of appointing Perry to head the Department of Energy is awesome.
However, I'm not going to close my eyes or look the other way every time Trump lurches left on economic / fiscal policy.
SeriousStudent
12-14-16, 20:09
It's not just national security, his energy picks are also solid. Hell, the irony of appointing Perry to head the Department of Energy is awesome.
......
So it wasn't just me that caught that one.
MountainRaven
12-14-16, 21:30
Once again, I don't think we are going to be BFFs or anything. But perhaps coming to agreements in the middle east about who is going to have influence in what country would be better than what we are doing now. It would also be nice to be on something less than a cold war posture with Russia.
Like it or not, Putin is rebuilding a super power, we can either accept that and find the common ground that exists when it exists or we can screw it up like Obama has been doing for the last 8 years.
It might be worth remembering that Stalin and Churchill had agreed on which countries each would be allowed to bring into their sphere in Europe upon the defeat of Nazi Germany.
An agreement that Truman promptly tore up after Japan surrendered, because Truman thought that the Soviets couldn't build an atomic weapon and that the US's possession of such weapons should cow the USSR and make them play the game the way Truman wanted it played.
RetroRevolver77
12-15-16, 11:53
This is huge.
Comey to Trump; the Russians didn't influence the election.
In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
http://townhall.com/columnists/edklein/2016/12/14/comey-to-trump-the-russians-didnt-influence-the-election-n2259827
So there goes that narrative, seems all these liberal rag newspapers trying to say that the election was hacked to illegitimize the Trump Presidency is just another fake news story.
7n6
This is huge.
Comey to Trump; the Russians didn't influence the election.
In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
http://townhall.com/columnists/edklein/2016/12/14/comey-to-trump-the-russians-didnt-influence-the-election-n2259827
So there goes that narrative, seems all these liberal rag newspapers trying to say that the election was hacked to illegitimize the Trump Presidency is just another fake news story.
7n6
Wag the dog anyone? :(
It's not just national security, his energy picks are also solid. Hell, the irony of appointing Perry to head the Department of Energy is awesome.
However, I'm not going to close my eyes or look the other way every time Trump lurches left on economic / fiscal policy.
I don't know much bout his energy pics. What is it about Perry that's a win on Energy?
It might be worth remembering that Stalin and Churchill had agreed on which countries each would be allowed to bring into their sphere in Europe upon the defeat of Nazi Germany.
An agreement that Truman promptly tore up after Japan surrendered, because Truman thought that the Soviets couldn't build an atomic weapon and that the US's possession of such weapons should cow the USSR and make them play the game the way Truman wanted it played.
Truman also tore it up because in FDR's later years, especially at Yalta, he was suffering some dementia and sold the store to the Soviets.
I don't know much bout his energy pics. What is it about Perry that's a win on Energy?
The Energy Department is the same federal agency Perry wanted to eliminate during the campaign. Interestingly, and ironically, during a Republican presidential primary debate he forgot the name of the agency when asked which departments he would shut down. "I will tell you, it is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone: Commerce, Education, and — what's the third one there? Let's see," Perry said. When he was pressed by the moderator to name the third agency, Perry said, "The third one, I can't. Sorry. Oops."
This is huge.
Comey to Trump; the Russians didn't influence the election.
In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
http://townhall.com/columnists/edklein/2016/12/14/comey-to-trump-the-russians-didnt-influence-the-election-n2259827
So there goes that narrative, seems all these liberal rag newspapers trying to say that the election was hacked to illegitimize the Trump Presidency is just another fake news story.
7n6
Here's the problem, people are using the word "hacked" when they should have been using the word "exposed." It seems absolutely likely that Russia supported the effort to EXPOSE Clinton emails and those sent by members of the DNC that would show them in an unfavorable light.
But we need to remember that Clinton and others in the DNC actually wrote those emails and expressed those opinions and views. Russia didn't help expose bogus emails. Russia didn't get into election servers and change votes counter. It wasn't a hack anymore than Woodward and Bernstein HACKED the Nixon election.
In both cases, information that was meant to be kept secret, was brought to light to show something of a truer picture of the person in question. To keep calling "exposed information" a "hack" is just another example of the blatant misinformation word game people on the left are trying to play.
Russia absolutely had a preferred candidate. And they were clearly supportive of releasing information in the form of Clinton emails that would harm her chances. They actually did our country something of a service because if the content of those emails was so objectionable that it cost her the election, than they saved us from electing a candidate we would find unacceptable.
If Bush in 2004 went off his rocker and planned to orchestrate a fake nuclear attack on the US so he could obliterate China, and we received credible and factual information about the plan from Russia, that wouldn't be a "hack", that would be a "heads up" that could save the country from disaster. They seem to have done that regarding a much less severe scenario involving Clinton.
If Hillary didn't write all those emails, there would be nothing troubling to expose. If she didn't mishandle classified emails and try to retain control independent of government oversight by using a personal server, there wouldn't have been FBI investigations to make people question her credibility. The election was never hacked, a candidate was exposed.
But now every time somebody tries to say something bad about Trump, we can simply say that HuffyPo or whatever the source, is trying to HACK the Trump Presidency. I guess that is the new word that means something other than what it means.
Here's the problem, people are using the word "hacked" when they should have been using the word "exposed." It seems absolutely likely that Russia supported the effort to EXPOSE Clinton emails and those sent by members of the DNC that would show them in an unfavorable light.
.
Per my thread dedicated the "hack"
I have seen the CIA and various ilk claim Russia's actions interferred with US elections.
"Interfered" as in hacked the emails of his rival? Made fake news sites? Anything else? I'm still actually trying to get a handle on exactly what is meant by that. Is there additional info not being released? Did they actually alter numbers by hacking voter machines or something that would directly alter the outcome of the election?
The email hack should be approached as a national security issue and investigated as such no matter how happy people may be HC is not POTUS, but it's a far leap to say it had any real direct impact on the election and I can guarantee you there's people in DC who think the Russians did us a favor on that one.
Doc Safari
12-15-16, 13:36
Russia absolutely had a preferred candidate. And they were clearly supportive of releasing information in the form of Clinton emails that would harm her chances. They actually did our country something of a service because if the content of those emails was so objectionable that it cost her the election, than they saved us from electing a candidate we would find unacceptable.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the dirty little secret: the Russians are actually on the side of good by going to war against ISIS while we at best made a half-assed effort under Obama/Clinton. At worst our Muslim sympathizer president was helping ISIS, but that's another can of worms. The Russians were at least practical and prudent enough to recognize that a Clinton presidency might lead to a bloody, devastating third world war, whereas a Trump presidency at worst might result in a manageable mini-cold war with some cooperation and some opposition.
Advantage: everyone.
We will never know how close we might have come to World War III under Clinton, and that's maybe the best thing about a Trump presidency.
RetroRevolver77
12-15-16, 13:45
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the dirty little secret: the Russians are actually on the side of good by going to war against ISIS while we at best made a half-assed effort under Obama/Clinton. At worst our Muslim sympathizer president was helping ISIS, but that's another can of worms. The Russians were at least practical and prudent enough to recognize that a Clinton presidency might lead to a bloody, devastating third world war, whereas a Trump presidency at worst might result in a manageable mini-cold war with some cooperation and some opposition.
Advantage: everyone.
We will never know how close we might have come to World War III under Clinton, and that's maybe the best thing about a Trump presidency.
Here is Obama saying they are training ISIS/ISIL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNha3nabZeI
U.S Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Hillary Clinton campaigner about the fact of ISIS being created by the U.S.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKr6fWv1ASc
Here's the problem, people are using the word "hacked" when they should have been using the word "exposed." It seems absolutely likely that Russia supported the effort to EXPOSE Clinton emails and those sent by members of the DNC that would show them in an unfavorable light.
But we need to remember that Clinton and others in the DNC actually wrote those emails and expressed those opinions and views. Russia didn't help expose bogus emails. Russia didn't get into election servers and change votes counter. It wasn't a hack anymore than Woodward and Bernstein HACKED the Nixon election.
In both cases, information that was meant to be kept secret, was brought to light to show something of a truer picture of the person in question. To keep calling "exposed information" a "hack" is just another example of the blatant misinformation word game people on the left are trying to play.
Russia absolutely had a preferred candidate. And they were clearly supportive of releasing information in the form of Clinton emails that would harm her chances. They actually did our country something of a service because if the content of those emails was so objectionable that it cost her the election, than they saved us from electing a candidate we would find unacceptable.
If Bush in 2004 went off his rocker and planned to orchestrate a fake nuclear attack on the US so he could obliterate China, and we received credible and factual information about the plan from Russia, that wouldn't be a "hack", that would be a "heads up" that could save the country from disaster. They seem to have done that regarding a much less severe scenario involving Clinton.
If Hillary didn't write all those emails, there would be nothing troubling to expose. If she didn't mishandle classified emails and try to retain control independent of government oversight by using a personal server, there wouldn't have been FBI investigations to make people question her credibility. The election was never hacked, a candidate was exposed.
But now every time somebody tries to say something bad about Trump, we can simply say that HuffyPo or whatever the source, is trying to HACK the Trump Presidency. I guess that is the new word that means something other than what it means.
Didn't the Russians also try to give us a "heads up" about the Tsarnayev terrorists? Damn those Godless Russkies for interfering with the Boston Marathon! :rolleyes:
RetroRevolver77
12-15-16, 14:46
Are you guys tired of winning yet? I'm not.
FBI to go after Clinton Foundation after uncovering evidence of money laundering.
Officials at FBI headquarters instructed its New York field office to continue its corruption investigation into the Clinton Foundation following the election of Republican candidate Donald Trump, according to a former senior law enforcement official.
The instructions ordered agents to “go forward” with their ongoing inquiry into the Clinton Foundation which is focusing on issues of corruption and money laundering, according to the source.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/14/exclusive-fbi-new-york-field-office-told-to-continue-clinton-foundation-probe/ (http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/14/exclusive-fbi-new-york-field-office-told-to-continue-clinton-foundation-probe/)
I can't wait to see her cuffed and stuffed when they arrest her.
7n6
Are you guys tired of winning yet? I'm not.
FBI to go after Clinton Foundation after uncovering evidence of money laundering.
Officials at FBI headquarters instructed its New York field office to continue its corruption investigation into the Clinton Foundation following the election of Republican candidate Donald Trump, according to a former senior law enforcement official.
The instructions ordered agents to “go forward” with their ongoing inquiry into the Clinton Foundation which is focusing on issues of corruption and money laundering, according to the source.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/14/exclusive-fbi-new-york-field-office-told-to-continue-clinton-foundation-probe/ (http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/14/exclusive-fbi-new-york-field-office-told-to-continue-clinton-foundation-probe/)
I can't wait to see her cuffed and stuffed when they arrest her.
7n6
http://i.imgur.com/hzaJ4Hn.png
Doc Safari
12-15-16, 14:50
Are you guys tired of winning yet? I'm not.
FBI to go after Clinton Foundation after uncovering evidence of money laundering.
Call Outlander Systems. Tell him there's another four-hour erection coming.
Here is Obama saying they are training ISIS/ISIL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNha3nabZeI
What's one of the first signs you s.o. is cheating? Yep, they accuse you of cheating.
I want the two tallest, most visibly muscular blackest US Marshals to drag her away screaming
I want the two tallest, most visibly muscular blackest US Marshals to drag her away screaming
Not going to happen.
Oh and by the way. That's racist.
No it's not. There is nothing wrong with fetishizing the Justice system
I just want really vascular, possibly gay black dudes to drag her off to a transport bus. Flailing and screaming. One should be bald and one should have a box cut and maybe green contacts. Possibly wearing shorts. Like some Obsidian Grecian statue.
ETA I mean lady justice is blindfolded with a sword and is topless. Handcuffs and mirror sunglasses are involved. I think few people realize how kinky LE at all levels and branches can be.
Didn't the Russians also try to give us a "heads up" about the Tsarnayev terrorists? Damn those Godless Russkies for interfering with the Boston Marathon! :rolleyes:
They tried to hack our anti terrorism plan.
Business_Casual
12-16-16, 06:23
Faithless elector lied about being 9/11 responder:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/16/report-faithless-elector-lied-about-being-a-911-first-responder/
Averageman
12-16-16, 06:57
If you look at how the Russians have been dealing with radical islam, and how their Intelligence could be shared with us, why poke the Bear?
I keep remembering our POTUS chiding Mitt Romney about Russia and his foreign policy being outdated.
How convenient that now the Socialist have some Russia to blame.
Faithless elector lied about being 9/11 responder:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/16/report-faithless-elector-lied-about-being-a-911-first-responder/
HAHA! What a magnificent tool!
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=.5023c6d380e7
Either we are witnessing an attempted coup, or there are high level games afoot for no other reason than selling clicks, views or whatever.....I am starting to lean towards a multi-faceted coup starting, even if that is not each individuals current intent.
Doc Safari
12-16-16, 14:33
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=.5023c6d380e7
Either we are witnessing an attempted coup, or there are high level games afoot for no other reason than selling clicks, views or whatever.....I am starting to lean towards a multi-faceted coup starting, even if that is not each individuals current intent.
If these factions succeed in overturning the election I don't see how this country avoids descending into chaos.
RetroRevolver77
12-16-16, 14:37
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=.5023c6d380e7
Either we are witnessing an attempted coup, or there are high level games afoot for no other reason than selling clicks, views or whatever.....I am starting to lean towards a multi-faceted coup starting, even if that is not each individuals current intent.
The only things the Russians likely hacked was Clintons bathroom server and dumped the contents of her Pedophile friends e-mails online.
If these factions succeed in overturning the election I don't see how this country avoids descending into chaos.
Deservedly so if the chumps on the street buy into this propaganda war. :(
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=.5023c6d380e7
Either we are witnessing an attempted coup, or there are high level games afoot for no other reason than selling clicks, views or whatever.....I am starting to lean towards a multi-faceted coup starting, even if that is not each individuals current intent.
Maybe Lynch and Comey need to have a talk to get on the same page and get their stories straight....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/15/loretta_lynch_we_didnt_see_any_techincal_interference_from_russia_in_the_election.html
Maybe Lynch and Comey need to have a talk to get on the same page and get their stories straight....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/15/loretta_lynch_we_didnt_see_any_techincal_interference_from_russia_in_the_election.html
Perhaps we should have Comey confirm what an anonymous source claims Brennan claims Comey said first? :(
I'd like to see Clapper confirm, or deny, first. Then Comey....
Outlander Systems
12-16-16, 16:07
@SHIVAN:
“A basic principle of journalism is to acknowledge when the owner of a media outlet has a major financial relationship with the subject of coverage. We strongly urge the Washington Post to be fully candid with its readers about the fact that the newspaper’s new owner, Jeff Bezos, is the founder and CEO of Amazon which recently landed a $600 million contract with the CIA. The Washington Post’s coverage of the CIA should include full disclosure that the sole owner of the Post is also the main owner of Amazon -- and Amazon is now gaining huge profits directly from the CIA.”
Doc Safari
12-16-16, 16:38
Where's kek when you really need him?
@SHIVAN:
“A basic principle of journalism is to acknowledge when the owner of a media outlet has a major financial relationship with the subject of coverage. We strongly urge the Washington Post to be fully candid with its readers about the fact that the newspaper’s new owner, Jeff Bezos, is the founder and CEO of Amazon which recently landed a $600 million contract with the CIA. The Washington Post’s coverage of the CIA should include full disclosure that the sole owner of the Post is also the main owner of Amazon -- and Amazon is now gaining huge profits directly from the CIA.”
Source of this content?
RetroRevolver77
12-16-16, 17:33
Source of this content?
The upper ranks of the DNC and MSM are intermarried. It's the reason why these non standard media outlets have risen due to the amount of propaganda of what is now a DNC run media.
Outlander Systems
12-16-16, 17:35
http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8979
Embedded media links tell the entire story.
HuffPo writeup:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4587927
Source of this content?
RetroRevolver77
12-19-16, 14:29
Let the salty liberal tears flow! Electoral college is voting right now. So many tears, such little hope, even begging celebrities can't save you SJW's now!!!!!
MAGA
7n6
Doc Safari
12-19-16, 14:33
I went to Zero Hedge or some other website where you could supposedly follow the Electoral votes in real time for each state. That's putting way too much time into this.
I wonder which news site will ACCURATELY report the final result for all states and when? Fox? Drudge? Breitbart? RealClearPolitics?
I don't expect more than a handful of Republican electors to be faithless, but I'm curious to see just how it comes down in the final numbers.
EDITED TO ADD:
Well, no sooner to I post this and I find a sort of ongoing ticker of the Electoral vote progress:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/the-latest-trump-has-134-electoral-votes-of-270-to-win/
RetroRevolver77
12-19-16, 14:52
Trump is at 240 right now.
Texas is voting now and expected to bring him over 270.
Texas is also purposely dragging out their vote to savor the moment.
http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/12/19/trump-reaches-240-electoral-votes-texas-expected-to-put-him-across-270-next-hour_434.html
Doc Safari
12-19-16, 15:01
Trump is at 240 right now.
Texas is voting now and expected to bring him over 270.
Texas is also purposely dragging out their vote to savor the moment.
http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/12/19/trump-reaches-240-electoral-votes-texas-expected-to-put-him-across-270-next-hour_434.html
COOL! Never heard of that site.
RetroRevolver77
12-19-16, 15:13
Hillary is actually losing votes to Faithless Electors.
They told them to vote their conscience- so one voted for Bernie instead and they replaced him.
A few more voted in Washington for some Tribal Elder and Colin Powell instead of Hillary- she lost four votes there. LOL.
Look at this Meltdown after Wisconsin votes;
http://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/protestors-disrupt-wisconsin-presidential-electors-trump-vote
Trump is at 259.
Waiting on Texas right now.
Let the salty liberal tears flow! 7n6
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/311044-bill-clinton-on-voting-for-hillary-i-never-cast-a-vote-i-was-prouder-of
A teary-eyed Bill Clinton on Monday praised his wife's hard-fought presidential campaign and stressed how important his electoral vote for her was to him.
RetroRevolver77
12-19-16, 16:27
It’s official.
The 45th President of the United States, Mr. Donald J. Trump!!!!
Wow, Dems voting for Sanders and "anyone else" in some cases.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/latest-electoral-college-meets-formally-elect-trump-44280632
This is really interesting...
A second elector — this one in Minnesota — has refused to cast a vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton in Monday's Electoral College tally.
It wasn't immediately clear why Muhammad Abdurrahman didn't vote for Clinton, but he was a delegate for Bernie Sanders at the Democratic National Convention.
The electors are pledged to cast Minnesota's 10 electoral votes for Clinton since she won the state.
Abdurrahman was immediately replaced by an alternate who later voted for Clinton.
So I guess in some cases a protest vote isn't allowed. Wonder if anyone who refused to vote for Trump would be replaced by an alternate?
Doc Safari
12-19-16, 16:31
http://www.270towin.com/live-2016-presidential-election-vote-of-electors/
Looks like Texas ended up with a grand total of two faithless Trump electors. We knew about one; I wonder who the other one voted for?
RetroRevolver77
12-19-16, 16:32
Wow, Dems voting for Sanders and "anyone else" in some cases.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/latest-electoral-college-meets-formally-elect-trump-44280632
This is really interesting...
A second elector — this one in Minnesota — has refused to cast a vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton in Monday's Electoral College tally.
It wasn't immediately clear why Muhammad Abdurrahman didn't vote for Clinton, but he was a delegate for Bernie Sanders at the Democratic National Convention.
The electors are pledged to cast Minnesota's 10 electoral votes for Clinton since she won the state.
Abdurrahman was immediately replaced by an alternate who later voted for Clinton.
So I guess in some cases a protest vote isn't allowed. Wonder if anyone who refused to vote for Trump would be replaced by an alternate?
Texas had two that didn't vote for Trump and I heard Rand Paul as one of the ones they voted for.
Texas had two that didn't vote for Trump and I heard Rand Paul as one of the ones they voted for.
So why weren't they replaced like the guy in Minnesota?
I just love that the extremist left can't get it through their heads that mainstream American is sick and tired of their damn shit.
Things like the push for protest electoral votes, Clinton lost even harder than she did on election night.
RetroRevolver77
12-19-16, 16:42
So why weren't they replaced like the guy in Minnesota?
Republicans allow their electors to vote their conscience if need be.
Anyway....
We be President now!!!!
MAGA
7n6
So why weren't they replaced like the guy in Minnesota?
That law varies from state to state.
That law varies from state to state.
That's a bit convenient and contrary to the purpose of the electoral college.
That's a bit convenient and contrary to the purpose of the electoral college.
Yes but so is calling it the electoral "college". It really should be the electoral junior high. :(
http://www.270towin.com/live-2016-presidential-election-vote-of-electors/
We knew about one; I wonder who the other one voted for?
Texas – In Texas, 36 out of its 38 electoral votes went to Trump. Chris Suprun wrote today on The Hill that he still intended to cast his vote for John Kasich and not Trump. Once the meeting got underway, four electors resigned and then were replaced, which caused the results to be delayed. One of the electors, Sisneros, did not want to vote for Trump. The other three found out they were ineligible, Sean Walsh of the Statesman reported.
http://100percentfedup.com/live-electoral-vote-count-talliesupdate-trump-306-hillary-224/
MSNBC will soon be reporting that the Russians hacked the electoral college...
Show me on the doll where the Russians hacked you
MSNBC will soon be reporting that the Russians hacked the electoral college...
Show me on the doll where the Russians hacked you
So much THIS.
"Hillary got TRUMPED."
Doc Safari
12-19-16, 20:45
She ended up losing worse after the recounts and the electoral college totals were in.
Kek is alive and well...
She ended up losing worse after the recounts and the electoral college totals were in.
Kek is alive and well...
Is that so? Doesn't surprise me. Do you have a link to this?
Is that so? Doesn't surprise me. Do you have a link to this?
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/19/506188169/donald-trump-poised-to-secure-electoral-college-win-with-few-surprises
Is that so? Doesn't surprise me. Do you have a link to this?
This one is handy because they have popular vote totals and EC totals on one page.
http://www.270towin.com/live-2016-presidential-election-vote-of-electors/
She ended up losing worse after the recounts and the electoral college totals were in.
Isn't it beautiful!!!
Show me on the doll where the Russians hacked you
Even better then my comment. This one got shared around the office this morning.
I don't know how to post this video but it is good. Might have to have Facebook to see it.
Bunch of clips of libs mocking Trump.
https://www.facebook.com/supremepatriot/videos/364669477242697/
Doc Safari
12-20-16, 09:34
So....my question to the anti-Trump Moonbats:
Where do you go from here?
Protest the inauguration? Burn cities?
Keep it up assholes. Every time you pull these shenanigans you create another legion of conservative voters.
Biggest bunch of whining crybaby pinko commie wimps ever known to man.
So....my question to the anti-Trump Moonbats:
Where do you go from here?
Protest the inauguration? Burn cities?
Keep it up assholes. Every time you pull these shenanigans you create another legion of conservative voters.
Biggest bunch of whining crybaby pinko commie wimps ever known to man.
Impeachment. The opening will be areas where he transgresses the conflct of interest statutes.
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/12/15/elizabeth-warren-just-filed-bill-lead-trumps-impeachment/
Senate Democrats are planning to introduce legislation that would require Donald Trump to divest any financial assets that pose a conflict of interest and place the money into a blind trust. The bill stipulates that any violation of conflict of interest or other ethics laws by Mr. Trump would be considered “a high crime or misdemeanor under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution,” according to a statement posted on Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (MA) website.
Impeachment. The opening will be areas where he transgresses the conflct of interest statutes.
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/12/15/elizabeth-warren-just-filed-bill-lead-trumps-impeachment/
Certainly there is precedent that not divesting would be OK a la Clinton Foundation and HRC's role as SoS. Besides, with the look of Congress for the next two years I would be surprised such legislation would get out of committee.*
*NOT saying, of course, that he shouldn't do it; I most definitely think he should.
Certainly there is precedent that not divesting would be OK a la Clinton Foundation and HRC's role as SoS. Besides, with the look of Congress for the next two years I would be surprised such legislation would get out of committee.*
*NOT saying, of course, that he shouldn't do it; I most definitely think he should.
I doubt that Senate Democrats have a prayer of passing such legislation. As it is, under Title 18 Section 208, the President and the Vice-President are exempt from the conflict of interest laws that apply to all other public employees. The only hope the liberal whiners have left is to pass a new law specifically aimed at divesting Trump. Kind of a long shot that such legislation would get through congress, I agree.
Impeachment. The opening will be areas where he transgresses the conflct of interest statutes.
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/12/15/elizabeth-warren-just-filed-bill-lead-trumps-impeachment/
The Dems pursuing conflict of interest cases against Trump are as rich as the floor of a dairy farm barn.
Doc Safari
12-20-16, 11:30
The Dems pursuing conflict of interest cases against Trump are as rich as the floor of a dairy farm barn.
I actually think that will be the Clintons' next big strategic mistake: they will go after Trump's business dealings and will end up opening the Clinton Foundation to the Mother of All Investigations.
They are circling the drain and don't even know it.
Doc Safari
12-20-16, 11:59
According to Rush Limbaugh just now, Hillary had more faithless electors than any other candidate in 100 years.
:laugh::haha:
The Dems pursuing conflict of interest cases against Trump are as rich as the floor of a dairy farm barn.
Of course, but you're not surprised, are you?
According to Rush Limbaugh just now, Hillary had more faithless electors than any other candidate in 100 years.
:laugh::haha:
Clinton had 5 electors bail on her, Trump had 2. There were actually others that tried to dump Clinton in favor of Sanders. One was fired and replaced and the other was told "you can't do that" and he said "OK".
I doubt we would see electors bail on Hillary if she needed them to win. They were free to throw away and make statements with... like all third party voters in non-swing states.
Averageman
12-20-16, 15:39
I hear that Bill Clinton now has a place in the electoral college and he voted for Hillary.
First time he was ever faithful to Hillary and she loses anyway,...damn that must sting.
Dist. Expert 26
12-22-16, 22:17
I just saw a tweet from Trump about ditching the F-35 program in favor of an updated F-18.
I'm no aviation expert, so what's the thoughts on this? Would a Super Hornet equipped with a new electronics package be a viable option?
I just saw a tweet from Trump about ditching the F-35 program in favor of an updated F-18.
I'm no aviation expert, so what's the thoughts on this? Would a Super Hornet equipped with a new electronics package be a viable option?
I'm not sure. A couple of thoughts:
1) The F-35B was supposed to replace the Marines AV-8Bs. Are the Marines going to continue to use these for close air support if the F35 gets scrapped?
2) What about the Air Force's aging F16s and the A10s being put out to pasture? It seems that ditching the AF's F35s would leave gaps in their close air support capability.
3) Funding for the JSF program was principally from the US but other NATO allies contributed. Are we prepared to reimburse those allies who were expecting aircraft?
It seems that we are WAY too far down the F35 rabbit hole to eject.
MountainRaven
12-23-16, 00:23
I'm not sure. A couple of thoughts:
1) The F-35B was supposed to replace the Marines AV-8Bs. Are the Marines going to continue to use these for close air support if the F35 gets scrapped?
2) What about the Air Force's aging F16s and the A10s being put out to pasture? It seems that ditching the AF's F35s would leave gaps in their close air support capability.
3) Funding for the JSF program was principally from the US but other NATO allies contributed. Are we prepared to reimburse those allies who were expecting aircraft?
It seems that we are WAY too far down the F35 rabbit hole to eject.
I believe Congress has ordered the Air Force keep the A-10 in the fleet for the foreseeable future. Not least of all because the F-35 couldn't have replaced the A-10, anyway.
The F-16 was supposed to replace the A-10, too. The Air Force even went so far as to mount a GAU-8/A in an F-16, but ended up abandoning that plan for even worse ones when firing the gun caused the aircraft to catch on fire (exaggeration - but the airframe was badly singed). The next idea was to put 30mm canon in gun pods mounted to the wings, but the recoil made the aircraft unstable, they were difficult to aim, and the gun pylons became bent and misaligned after firing the guns.
Allied NATO countries that bail (or get dumped) on the JSF have plenty of other options: Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gripen, &c.
I suppose we need to separate the actual scrapping of the F35 program from the threat of scrapping it as a negotiation tactic.
Outlander Systems
12-23-16, 08:25
Just bust out the TR3Bs, arm them with directed-energy weapons, and cut the bullshit.
I just saw a tweet from Trump about ditching the F-35 program in favor of an updated F-18.
I'm no aviation expert, so what's the thoughts on this? Would a Super Hornet equipped with a new electronics package be a viable option?
To fulfill a traditional role that the 18 does now, sure. To do the role envisioned for the 35? Not even close. Before you get too far down that path of thinking, consider this: when DoD "improved " the hornet to make the super hornet, it lost performance. It's the brain trust at DoD more than the aircraft manufacturer that is causing all the problems. Every time they try to make something (even beyond aircraft) that does everything for all people hoping to save logistics and cost, it does none of it.
I thought the F-35 was a money pit anyway?
It's not that I think the F-35 program was a bad idea, but the baseline goals and overall implementation are a complete debacle. No, the F-35 can not hope to compete with the A-10 for CAS. It would be valuable in contested airspace and if it comes to full fruition, rapid reaction to unexpected calls for CAS. Still, the best method is to establish air superiority right from the onset of hostilities, which is something we do very well. After that, A-10's, Spectre gunships and F-16's can easily cover the CAS role at lower cost. In contested airspace, the use of F-22's and F-15's vectored by AWACS to provide CAP for the others would be a solid plan of action.
We're still a rich country and we can and should continue to develop bleeding edge military tech, but where we always seem to stumble is placing desire over reality. AF zoomies hate the fat, ugly, slow planes that deliver mountains of ordinance because they're not sexy enough. But when a belligerent needs sat on, you send Tess Holiday not Candice Swanepoel.
Dist. Expert 26
12-23-16, 13:44
I suppose we need to separate the actual scrapping of the F35 program from the threat of scrapping it as a negotiation tactic.
That's a valid point. It seems that he's actually going to run the government like a business, which I can't see being a bad thing.
RetroRevolver77
12-23-16, 13:51
All this winning is making me sleepy.
All this winning is making me sleepy.
And he's not even President yet. You'll be catatonic.
And he's not even President yet. You'll be catatonic.
I think he meant 'whining' and he sleeps for an unknown period of time at this point.....Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen from the grave.
I think he meant 'whining' and he sleeps for an unknown period of time at this point.....Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen from the grave.
"Whining" works too.
Forgive me if this has been posted before:
When James Mattis Gave Away His Dinner: A story of character.
5:30 AM, DEC 31, 2016 | By FRANCES TILNEY BURKE
Character is often revealed in seemingly small gestures. Amid all the speculation about how retired Marine general James Mattis will manage to lead the behemoth called the Department of Defense, one personal experience I had a decade ago as a young staffer in the office of the Secretary of Defense sticks in my mind as a demonstration of Mattis's natural leadership ability. It was also an act of pure kindness I have never forgotten.
After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, as large numbers of wounded warriors started to come home to the United States to recuperate at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, my boss, Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy secretary of Defense, wanted the wounded service members and their families to know how much their sacrifices were appreciated. In addition to regular visits to Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospital, he frequently attended "Friday night dinners" hosted by two Vietnam veterans at a local restaurant they owned. There, he met some of the wounded service members and their families, particularly to learn about the challenges they faced trying to deal with a "nineteenth century bureaucracy" so unlike the twenty-first century medical care they were getting from some gifted military doctors. Accompanied by his close friend and senior military assistant, Brigadier General Frank Helmick, the pair were often able to assist the wounded warriors in overcoming an obstinate bureaucracy.
The Friday night dinners inspired the idea of hosting a dinner at the Pentagon, a place where many of these wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines had never been before. It would give them a chance to meet senior decision makers, both military and civilian, and share some of their intensely personal experiences of the war.
For this unusual dinner, elegant tables were set in the hallway of the Pentagon's E Ring. As immediate office staff, we were expected to serve the wounded warriors their dinner, help them to their seats, and attend to whatever they needed. A small Army band played at the top of the stairs and my Army friend—who years later became my husband—helped his fellow officers bring service members no longer able to use their legs up the stairs.
It may sound like a surprisingly festive occasion for a group of people who had little to be thankful for—except that they were still alive. But it was indeed festive. Then-Lieutenant General Mattis—who, as a two-star, had commanded the First Marine Division during the invasion of Iraq— was there among the senior military leaders, incredibly gracious spending time with all the young men (there were no women yet among the wounded at that point) and kneeling down to hear their stories.
I wasn't supposed to eat dinner there—just help serve it—but General Mattis insisted that I sit at his table, probably to break up the all-male atmosphere. A young soldier, probably no more than 18, was at our table. He was starving and devoured his beautiful dinner in just a few minutes. I will never forget the moment when General Mattis took his own untouched meal, cleared the young soldier's plate himself, and gave him a fresh plate of his food. Mattis went without dinner that night, not making a big deal out of it, keeping the table laughing, and making sure all those young warriors were attended to.
I can't write this story without tears coming to my eyes. It was a happy dinner but also touched by so much sadness. People's lives had been profoundly changed by the war. But General Mattis was just doing what he saw as his job: taking care of those who had served him and their country so bravely, and not once looking for recognition. That small act gives me great faith in what he can do as Secretary of Defense.
It shows, I believe, that Mattis will look for leaders at the Pentagon who have the service of the nation in mind, not the kind of parochial posturing that was evident in the very public debate about the Navy's budget priorities earlier this year. I read once in a Harvard Business Review article, urging the private sector to ape some of the leadership skills fostered in the military, that "The best leadership—whether in peacetime or war—is borne as a conscientious obligation to serve." I am confident that Mattis indeed has this "conscientious obligation to serve," which can only mean goodness for an organization as large as the Department of Defense, and those chosen to serve as senior staff.
Frances Tilney Burke was a special assistant to the deputy secretary of defense during the George W. Bush administration. She currently pursues graduate studies at The Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, focusing on international security studies and the history of U.S. foreign relations.
Your post....
For every story like this, there are dozens of others like it. I have a Mattis story, but don't want to share it.
For every story like this, there are dozens of others like it. I have a Mattis story, but don't want to share it.
I served under him when my unit was briefly under the command of the 1MEF (Al Anbar 2006-2007), but never met the man. Every Marine that I've encountered and every member of this forum except 1 who has met him see him as a model leader. Apparently, he shows unwavering commitment to his country, mission, and subordinates. That might explain why our current CIC could not stand him...
SeriousStudent
01-03-17, 20:21
Leaders eat last. Sometimes they don't eat at all.
Dist. Expert 26
01-03-17, 20:28
Leaders eat last. Sometimes they don't eat at all.
Well unless you're in the Navy. Then the "leaders" eat better food served to them by lower enlisted, in separate rooms. I never could wrap my head around that one.
Leaders eat last. Sometimes they don't eat at all.
IIRC I think Napoleon of all people started that standard.
It's rather telling of a man's measure. I've never work for a person who took every holiday off who wasn't a skinflint or a dirtbag.
If you had no authority, would your men still follow you? It is a question I ask people at times along with "If you didn't have a gun, would you still police like that?"
I think Trump at age 70 will be taking far fewer vacations than Obama took in his 40s
SeriousStudent
01-03-17, 20:52
Well unless you're in the Navy. Then the "leaders" eat better food served to them by lower enlisted, in separate rooms. I never could wrap my head around that one.
That's exactly why I used the word "leader", rather than NCO, officer, Chief, etc.
Well unless you're in the Navy. Then the "leaders" eat better food served to them by lower enlisted, in separate rooms. I never could wrap my head around that one.
Not my experience, not entirely, anyway. Different room, yes. Better food, no. Same food. Again, my experience. But in Marine Corps chow halls there are segregated areas as well for lower enlisted, staff NCOs, and officers.
I liked the Corps' tradition of in the field, if there is hot chow, the officers served, and definitely ate last.
I served under him when my unit was briefly under the command of the 1MEF (Al Anbar 2006-2007), but never met the man. Every Marine that I've encountered and every member of this forum except 1 who has met him see him as a model leader. Apparently, he shows unwavering commitment to his country, mission, and subordinates. That might explain why our current CIC could not stand him...
I did not meet him, but saw what he did with a fellow corpsman who had some family trouble. I will say this: I would walk through hell if he led me.
Averageman
01-04-17, 08:24
It's rather telling of a man's measure. I've never work for a person who took every holiday off who wasn't a skinflint or a dirtbag.
If you had no authority, would your men still follow you? It is a question I ask people at times along with "If you didn't have a gun, would you still police like that?"
I've found the same to be true. The best aren't always the biggest or loudest, sometimes just quiet guys who hold the standard.
I served with a Captain who was injured in the last days of Desert Storm, he refused to be evacuated stayed with us until we fell back in to Kuwait. Come to find out he had seriously injured his back. Injured it to the point of requiring surgery and was medically retired.
Dude hung in their tough as nails, didn't leave us until we were back in the States.
There isn't a lot I wouldn't have done to serve with him as a Colonel, too bad we never got the chance.
Dist. Expert 26
01-04-17, 10:28
Not my experience, not entirely, anyway. Different room, yes. Better food, no. Same food. Again, my experience. But in Marine Corps chow halls there are segregated areas as well for lower enlisted, staff NCOs, and officers.
I liked the Corps' tradition of in the field, if there is hot chow, the officers served, and definitely ate last.
I never once saw a chow hall with segregated areas for SNCO's and Officers. Literally never. It wasn't at all uncommon to eat breakfast next to a Sgt. Major or Lt. Col. Maybe things are different on the west coast.
As far as the Navy, we were forced to work for them on rotations during the MEU, and I can say without a doubt that officers and chiefs ate far better than the lower enlisted.
I never once saw a chow hall with segregated areas for SNCO's and Officers. Literally never. It wasn't at all uncommon to eat breakfast next to a Sgt. Major or Lt. Col. Maybe things are different on the west coast.
As far as the Navy, we were forced to work for them on rotations during the MEU, and I can say without a doubt that officers and chiefs ate far better than the lower enlisted.
I recall specifically Stone Bay. I can't recall mainside that much. The chow hall on the Del Mar side of I5 wasn't segregated, but I believe the one near the hospital on Pendleton was. That was....a long time ago.
Although I didn't work for ship's company when I was a corpsman, I never thought about the chow that much. But when I was commissioned and ate in the wardroom aboard a carrier (the Ike) the food came from the same kitchen. There were a few other perks; but then, we paid monthly dues as well as a food allowance.
Can't speak for the Chiefs. They always find a way around the rules and seem to have better everything.
But my fonder memories were the officers serving the enlisted in the field, and always eating after the enlisted. In my very early and formative years, that seared what "leadership" looked like, and I tried to emulate that as I climbed in rank.
Doc Safari
01-06-17, 13:40
Congress finally certified the Electoral College vote today:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ELECTORAL_COLLEGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-06-13-42-39
Interesting and disgusting that the sore loser democrats tried one last parliamentary trick to deny Trump the presidency:
As the votes were announced for state after state, Democratic members of the House stood up to object. But in each case, no Democratic senator would join them, and Biden cut them off.
"There can be no debate," Biden said repeatedly.
Under federal law, if at least one senator and one House member object to the vote from any state, the House and Senate will meet separately to debate the merits of the objection.
Toward the end of the count, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., pleaded for a senator to join her in objecting.
"Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?" Waters said to boos from Republicans. None did.
Several protesters were ejected from the public gallery as the vote count concluded.
skywalkrNCSU
01-20-17, 10:03
Now that Inauguration Day is here, what needs to happen over the next 4/8 years for Trump to have a successful presidency in your mind? Actions he needs to take, laws passed, foreign policy changes, economic improvement, etc.
At the same time, if he doesn't get certain things accomplished, what would make his presidency a failure?
More than repeal Obamacare, he needs to replace it with something better.
Appoint conservative, Constitution-loving justices to the SCOTUS
Simplify the tax code
"fix" the economy; or at least, put it on better footing
If he can't get these done, especially with a Republican Congress/Senate for the next two years, I would consider that a failure. Because he ain't getting nothing done after the mid-term elections....
Ease up Benito.
Voodoochild
Dist. Expert 26
01-20-17, 11:05
Pipe dreams aside, as long as he stays away from social issues (abortion, gay marriage etc.) and focuses on things that actually matter he'll be great.
skywalkrNCSU
01-20-17, 11:45
He needs to purge the bureaucracy of ALL lefties, prosecute and execute ALL traitors (including Lefties), build a wall, man it, mount .50 cal machineguns on it, implement drone surveillance with thermal cameras and armed with Hellfires, put marked minefield on Mexico's side. deport ALL illegals, end birthright citizenship, end ALL Musim immigration, make Islam illegal, deport ALL Muslims, appropriate all mosques and rebuild them into Churches, cut off ALL aid to Saudi Arabia and sponsors of terrorism, ally with Russia to support Assad, destroy ISIS, purge/dismantle the CIA, rebuild the manufacturing base, the middle class and the heart of American prosperity, scrap the NFA, force the States to abide by the 2nd Amendment as it's written word for word, help European nations shrug off globalism, Make Istanbul Constantinople Again, dismantle the Federal Reserve go back to a gold backed currency, stop printing money like it's ging out of style, cut off gibs, just off the top of my head.
Hail Victory
So I take it you are ready to be disappointed
If he can't get these done, especially with a Republican Congress/Senate for the next two years, I would consider that a failure. Because he ain't getting nothing done after the mid-term elections....
I look at this way....if he does get a substantive portion of his agenda done, the mid-term elections will likely cement his success.
Doc Safari
01-20-17, 11:47
All I know is that he's been president for only 45 minutes, and the sun is already brighter.
Seriously, though, Trump's main contribution to the country is to restore confidence. I lived 8 years under Obama expecting everything to keep getting worse. Now I don't have that problem.
I hope I'm not disappointed.
Singlestack Wonder
01-20-17, 12:00
To America's enemies, both internal and external, be afraid.
To the republicans in the senate and congress, don't squander this opportunity as it may never present itself again.
God bless America!
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-20-17, 15:08
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/20/donald-trump-inaugural-speech-called-one-of-the-mo/
Trump's speech one of the most radical? How is being for the little guy and not politiicians radical? Just another example of the MSM out of touch.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/van-jones-on-trump-world-adrift-cnntv/index.html
The world is adrift? It finally has a captain.
Averageman
01-20-17, 15:14
And so here it is, the answer to electing Donald Trump is...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/20/day-protests-arrests-expected-trump-becomes-president/96788208/
Shortly before the encounter, limo driver Luis Villarroel of Virginia said he was dropping off passengers near the Washington Post building when he saw "hundreds of masked men" coming his way.
"They threw food at me," he said, adding that they pounded the vehicle and then threw a flare inside the car.
"This is my business. Why are you destroying my stuff? It took me years to build," he recounted after the crowd left.
On the next corner at a Wells Fargo bank at 13th and I St NW, glass windows were shattered and ATMs smashed.
Screw some small business owner and destroy stuff. This isn't going to work out well for them.
The live updates I'm seeing are suggesting things are devolving. MPDC and park definitely have their hands full.
Lots of anarchy folks running around.
The live updates I'm seeing are suggesting things are devolving. MPDC and park definitely have their hands full.
Lots of anarchy folks running around.
"Protestors have lit a car on fire."
- Fox Business, 2017
Averageman
01-20-17, 15:28
"Protestors have lit a car on fire."
- Fox Business, 2017
And this is why I couldn't have been a Cop. If I saw someone light up a Malakoff Cocktail I would shoot them in the knee hoping they fell on it.
And this is why I couldn't have been a Cop. If I saw someone light up a Malakoff Cocktail I would shoot them in the knee hoping they fell on it.
This is why I couldn't be a reporter.... I might be tempted to call a rioter a rioter, which is a big no-no.
Averageman
01-20-17, 15:38
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/20/inauguration-protesters-clash-with-police-as-violence-escalates.html
A Kansas couple told FoxNews.com they were attacked at the checkpoint by demonstrators.
Celeste Sollars, who said she and her husband came to town from Kansas to see the inauguration, said they were spit on and her husband was put in a chokehold by protesters.
"The cops wouldn't do anything,” she said, crying. “This is not how it was supposed to be -- assault is not a First Amendment right.”
Sollars said she was attacked -- as demonstrators followed through on threats to disrupt President-elect Donald Trump’s inaugural ceremonies.
“We are here to let people know this presidency is not legit. It goes against hundreds of years of democracy -- black lives matter,” BLM DC’s Tracye Redd told FoxNews.com.
Geeze these guys need a sincere azz whoopin.
Edit to add more video;
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5290845757001/?playlist_id=2114913880001#sp=show-clips
I was just warming up. Trump also needs to impose martial law and literally crush and obliterate the Leftist enemies that have been undermining America from within since the 1940s.
He needs to finish what McCarthy barely started (God Bless McCarthy and James Forrestal).
I am envisioning brutal sadistic gulags in the far reaches of the Arctic, as that will belong to America once Trump liberates/annexes Canada from the Leftist enemy occupation government.
These frozen tundra gulags will allow Leftists to get in touch with Mother Nature/Gaia. The Polar Bears in the area will be injected with a bear version of Viagra, and the prisoners will be doused in female bear pheromones. It will be glorious.
Oh, I forgot, the best part, televised high def punishment of treason. I cannot wait. Where do I apply for the deportation/treason punishment force?
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-20-17, 19:21
Sitting in the United Club in Denver and these two guys are talking loudly about how horrible the whole Trump thing is and how if not for 87,000 votes in the rust belt states and the fact that HRC carried the pop vote by 2.blah million. How dumb Americans are.
Two assholes in black berets heading to San Francisco. Yep, we're what is wrong with America.
Now they are talking about brunch.
SeriousStudent
01-20-17, 19:33
Benito - when VoodooChild tells you to ease off, do it.
When you come back, pay attention to what Mod's tell you.
Warms heart knowing that when I walk into work Monday, it will be working under Mattis, a man who knows the job of DoD is finding, fixing and killing the enemy....
Granted Sec Mattis is about 8 levels above me but still
Nate
NAAH Tool Works
Naahtoolworks@gmail.com
This is gold right here. Slick Williy getting busted.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-48PSbc0SlQ
I predict, now that there are no Clintons in power and with the Clinton Foundation going down the drain, those two will file for divorce before the end of 2017.
This is gold right here. Slick Williy getting busted.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-48PSbc0SlQ
I predict, now that there are no Clintons in power and with the Clinton Foundation going down the drain, those two will file for divorce before the end of 2017.
If there is cosmic justice of any kind, they will be forced to be married to each other forever.
Read transcripts of Trump's speech and of Mattis's message to all service members.
I expected Mattis to be short and sweet, and he was.
I was impressed by Trump's speech, hope he can follow through.
Moose-Knuckle
01-21-17, 03:11
Now that Inauguration Day is here, what needs to happen over the next 4/8 years for Trump to have a successful presidency in your mind? Actions he needs to take, laws passed, foreign policy changes, economic improvement, etc.
Not a thing. He's already done it, he defeated Hillary.
At the same time, if he doesn't get certain things accomplished, what would make his presidency a failure?
See above.
I think it's safe to say that his presidency would be deemed a failure if, for whatever reason, the House or Senate loses seats in two years, and especially if either house loses their majority. He needs a majority in both houses just to offset the incessant negative reporting in the media. They won't let up. They will, with increasing desperation, try to convince every single American that black is white.
Spurholder
01-21-17, 09:20
Read transcripts of Trump's speech and of Mattis's message to all service members.
I expected Mattis to be short and sweet, and he was.
I was impressed by Trump's speech, hope he can follow through.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1055908/defense-secretary-issues-message-to-nations-sentinels-and-guardians
Can you guys believe it?!
I know it's been in the works for a while, but we have a warrior -James Mattis - running the Department of Defense!!
Now, if President Trump will allow a simple name change back to "War Department." Reset everyone's focus - we fight and win on EVERY battlefield!
sevenhelmet
01-21-17, 09:27
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1055908/defense-secretary-issues-message-to-nations-sentinels-and-guardians
Now, if President Trump will allow a simple name change back to "War Department." Reset everyone's focus - we fight and win on EVERY battlefield!
This. No "department of defense" ever won a war. But even though it won't happen, Mattis will change the focus quite a bit. I'm looking forward to that.
I'll just add, to those of you who said, on NUMEROUS occasions, (you know who you are) that Trump stood no chance. SUCK IT!
Yesterday was such a great day and I will savor it for a very long time.
#SCOTUS
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-21-17, 10:27
This. No "department of defense" ever won a war. But even though it won't happen, Mattis will change the focus quite a bit. I'm looking forward to that.
Change it to "Dept of Winning".
This. No "department of defense" ever won a war. But even though it won't happen, Mattis will change the focus quite a bit. I'm looking forward to that.
I agree, it will never happen. But just having Mattis as Secretary of Defense sends a powerful message to friends and enemies all over the world, one that perfectly complements the other components of Trump's agenda.
How would you all define "rebuilding the military" statements? Is our military really in need of re building? It would seem a change in priorities of what should be funded/focused on vs re built per se, is what's needed. It would seem G2G people have been hired who will know what the mil really needs at least.
How would you all define "rebuilding the military" statements? Is our military really in need of re building? It would seem a change in priorities of what should be funded/focused on vs re built per se, is what's needed. It would seem G2G people have been hired who will know what the mil really needs at least.
I see it as more of call to redefine it's scope, purpose, and application. Not so much it's physical existence.
How would you all define "rebuilding the military" statements? Is our military really in need of re building? It would seem a change in priorities of what should be funded/focused on vs re built per se, is what's needed. It would seem G2G people have been hired who will know what the mil really needs at least.
Remove leadership devoted to notions like nation building, update weapons and capabilities where most needed, change goals from "peacekeeping efforts" to other goals like "conflict resolution." We also need to think about how and where we might deploy unit and equipment in conjunction with potential new allies like Russia. We want to go in with decisive action but we also don't necessarily want to show them our coolest new toys or put are most valuable assets at risk by making them dependent upon the Russians doing what they say they intend to do.
How would you all define "rebuilding the military" statements? Is our military really in need of re building? It would seem a change in priorities of what should be funded/focused on vs re built per se, is what's needed. It would seem G2G people have been hired who will know what the mil really needs at least.
There are certain aspects that have been worn down to nub with the optempo of the last 15 years. One of my programs can't have more than one aircraft out of circulation for maintenance without being short for mission needs, either training or operational. Apparently didn't used to be like that...
Nate
NAAH Tool Works
Naahtoolworks@gmail.com
Averageman
01-21-17, 12:31
Remove leadership devoted to notions like nation building, update weapons and capabilities where most needed, change goals from "peacekeeping efforts" to other goals like "conflict resolution." We also need to think about how and where we might deploy unit and equipment in conjunction with potential new allies like Russia. We want to go in with decisive action but we also don't necessarily want to show them our coolest new toys or put are most valuable assets at risk by making them dependent upon the Russians doing what they say they intend to do.
I PM'ed you.
Sean Spicer BLASTS media and then walks out without taking questions...
https://youtu.be/LPlagGOFGeY
Dafuq did I just watch?
Interested to see what y'all think...is it going to be 4 years of this?
Honestly, aside from the message and it's veracity, I was underwhelmed by Mr. Spicer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sean Spicer BLASTS media and then walks out without taking questions...
https://youtu.be/LPlagGOFGeY
Dafuq did I just watch?
Interested to see what y'all think...is it going to be 4 years of this?
Honestly, aside from the message and it's veracity, I was underwhelmed by Mr. Spicer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have no love of the main stream media, but I don't think that this was a good start for the new administration at all. It's just more food that the anti-Trump media will use to bash him with. Yelling at a room full of career reporters over crowd size reporting and a false tweet and then storming off without taking any questions just makes them seem petty and childish. This isn't what we need from the Trump administration right now.
I have no love of the main stream media, but I don't think that this was a good start for the new administration at all. It's just more food that the anti-Trump media will use to bash him with. Yelling at a room full of career reporters over crowd size reporting and a false tweet and then storming off without taking any questions just makes them seem petty and childish. This isn't what we need from the Trump administration right now.
I agree. That was so far out in left field...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Kudos for blasting the media but that dude certainly needs to hone his public speaking skills.
Kudos for blasting the media but that dude certainly needs to hone his public speaking skills.
Yeah, sounded like he was just going from memory. Like he had been stopped in the hall and asked what's up. The fact he walked out on them I really don't care about. He did seem ill prepared though.
I see it as more of call to redefine it's scope, purpose, and application. Not so much it's physical existence.
I thought I heard someone on the news say he wanted to build 150 ships.... and I thought, I couldn't have heard that correctly, but they did seem to be talking about some significant physical build-up... Unfortunately I couldn't catch what it was all about. Knowing Trump, I would think he would want to trim fat, tone up and re-boot the whole ordeal.
Oh... and I heard the next camo change will actually be designed by a team on The Apprentice. :jester:
The media will spin everything they can to build up protesters, minimize Trump's support, and deligitimize his presidency. There is no reason to not call then out on national tv, atleast the MAJORITY of the American public (which supports him) will continue to be informed about the support he has and his intention of fighting the liberal media machine for the people.
MountainRaven
01-21-17, 20:13
The media will spin everything they can to build up protesters, minimize Trump's support, and deligitimize his presidency. There is no reason to not call then out on national tv, atleast the MAJORITY of the American public (which supports him) will continue to be informed about the support he has and his intention of fighting the liberal media machine for the people.
Sources?
Sources?
My own eyes, ears, and common sense.
30 cal slut
01-21-17, 21:18
Winning, day 2.
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f15/30calslut/winning_zpsjqdo77yr.jpg
Now that's funny as hell.
Firefly's gotta be able to find a squeeze in that crowd.
Kudos for blasting the media but that dude certainly needs to hone his public speaking skills.
I agree with both of your points. Hopefully the media will take more time to verify facts (e.g. MLK bust) and provide substantive news.
But, pretty sure that most folks in the room did not appreciate Mr. Spicer complaining about them.
Doc Safari
01-21-17, 21:43
That other president.....the one that just left office....what was his name again?
Winning, day 2.
OK, that was funny.
Sources?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2017/01/19/fox-news-poll-1117/
Trump: 42% favorable to 55% unfavorable. Most of those with an unfavorable opinion are strongly unfavorable. Common sense tells me that he has a bit of a hill to climb. Certainly not insurmountable, but it should make for an intertaining bonfire of the vanities.
Sean Spicer BLASTS media and then walks out without taking questions...
https://youtu.be/LPlagGOFGeY
Dafuq did I just watch?
Interested to see what y'all think...is it going to be 4 years of this?
Honestly, aside from the message and it's veracity, I was underwhelmed by Mr. Spicer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Spicer was full of BS.
http://www.redstate.com/patterico/2017/01/21/sean-spicers-rant-inauguration-crowds-packed-falsehoods/
Granted, arguing over the size of the crowd is stupid, but coming out and lying his ass off about Metro ridership, magnetometers on the Mall, etc. is just retarded. We have much more important things in this country to worry about other than the size of crowds at inauguration or protests.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2017/01/19/fox-news-poll-1117/
Trump: 42% favorable to 55% unfavorable. Most of those with an unfavorable opinion are strongly unfavorable. Common sense tells me that he has a bit of a hill to climb. Certainly not insurmountable, but it should make for an intertaining bonfire of the vanities.
And most of the unfavorables come not for how poorly they think he'll govern, bit for how a hostile opposition run media has defined him. Weaponized narrative is the next generation in warfare. Civil or transnational matters little anymore. It's all aboit winning fpr the sake of winning and the good of the country is barely a blip on the radar. :(
Dist. Expert 26
01-22-17, 00:26
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2017/01/19/fox-news-poll-1117/
Trump: 42% favorable to 55% unfavorable. Most of those with an unfavorable opinion are strongly unfavorable. Common sense tells me that he has a bit of a hill to climb. Certainly not insurmountable, but it should make for an intertaining bonfire of the vanities.
After the way the election went, I have exactly zero faith in such polls.
After a couple years of real economic growth I think a lot of opinions will either change or soften considerably. Time will tell.
Spicer was full of BS.
http://www.redstate.com/patterico/2017/01/21/sean-spicers-rant-inauguration-crowds-packed-falsehoods/
Granted, arguing over the size of the crowd is stupid, but coming out and lying his ass off about Metro ridership, magnetometers on the Mall, etc. is just retarded. We have much more important things in this country to worry about other than the size of crowds at inauguration or protests.
Here's how I see it. News outlets are running pictures from early in the day before Trump got there.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170120125040-inauguration-crowd-2017-trump-super-169.jpg
Then MSM sources such as CNN run a side by side of that photo with the same vantage point of the Obama inauguration crowd when Obama was there. It's an amazingly stunning bias that sacrifices any journalistic standards. Then of course everyone, including SNL picks it up and runs with it and it amazingly becomes "what really happened."
The CNN photo nobody seems to want to show is this one.
https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/gigapixel-1.jpg?w=640&h=428
This is the crowd in full attendance.
Now I'm not sure which is actually the bigger crowd. I suspect it was Obama for a lot of reasons (first black President, etc.), but that doesn't mean Trump didn't also have a lot of people on the front lawn, certainly more than what was shown in the early arrivals photo.
So polished presentation or not, Spicer was absolutely correct to tell the MSM to basically "F off" and then walk out on them. It's what they deserved.
platoonDaddy
01-22-17, 02:02
I have no love of the main stream media, but I don't think that this was a good start for the new administration at all. It's just more food that the anti-Trump media will use to bash him with. Yelling at a room full of career reporters over crowd size reporting and a false tweet and then storming off without taking any questions just makes them seem petty and childish. This isn't what we need from the Trump administration right now.
Dang, I think it is a great start! Hold them accountable and immediately address their slants!
There is a New Sheriff in Town!
Spicer was full of BS.
http://www.redstate.com/patterico/2017/01/21/sean-spicers-rant-inauguration-crowds-packed-falsehoods/
Granted, arguing over the size of the crowd is stupid, but coming out and lying his ass off about Metro ridership, magnetometers on the Mall, etc. is just retarded. We have much more important things in this country to worry about other than the size of crowds at inauguration or protests.
All correct. Except the MLK bust thing. There was only one reason it was even brought up by anyone, so I'm fine with that. But my point was, whether one thinks the other was true or not, 1. Who cares ? And 2, he looked unhinged.
And he looks about 4 feet tall. (Literally)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Moose-Knuckle
01-22-17, 05:11
Here's how I see it. News outlets are running pictures from early in the day before Trump got there.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170120125040-inauguration-crowd-2017-trump-super-169.jpg
Then MSM sources such as CNN run a side by side of that photo with the same vantage point of the Obama inauguration crowd when Obama was there. It's an amazingly stunning bias that sacrifices any journalistic standards. Then of course everyone, including SNL picks it up and runs with it and it amazingly becomes "what really happened."
The CNN photo nobody seems to want to show is this one.
https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/gigapixel-1.jpg?w=640&h=428
This is the crowd in full attendance.
Now I'm not sure which is actually the bigger crowd. I suspect it was Obama for a lot of reasons (first black President, etc.), but that doesn't mean Trump didn't also have a lot of people on the front lawn, certainly more than what was shown in the early arrivals photo.
So polished presentation or not, Spicer was absolutely correct to tell the MSM to basically "F off" and then walk out on them. It's what they deserved.
Absolutely all of this ↑ . . .
**** the mainstream media.
As for comparing inauguration crowds . . . :cool:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/534/32416777646_1a75689b90_b.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/448/32416777576_ce223c4411_b.jpg
After the way the election went, I have exactly zero faith in such polls.
After a couple years of real economic growth I think a lot of opinions will either change or soften considerably. Time will tell.
Perhaps you should more faith in the polls and less faith in our ability to interpret the data (including mine). Humor me for a second: the RCP average of polls on the day before the election predicted a popular vote victory for Hillary by 3.2%. She actually won the popular vote by 2.1% which is well within the margin of error. Even the exit polling on Election Day, which is the least accurate form of polling, showed Hillary in deep KaKa. The only polls that I can find that were dead wrong and outside the MOE were state polls in MI, WI, and PA. That is 3 states out of 50 which is still 94% accuracy. So, feel free to believe what you want, but the national polling did exactly what it was supposed to do and did it accurately.
And most of the unfavorables come not for how poorly they think he'll govern, bit for how a hostile opposition run media has defined him. Weaponized narrative is the next generation in warfare. Civil or transnational matters little anymore. It's all aboit winning fpr the sake of winning and the good of the country is barely a blip on the radar. :(
I'm not sure how you determine the bolded part and I'm not ready to assign motives. However, I agree with others in this thread that Trump is not going to win a war of honesty with the media when his spokespersons unleash their own line of bullshit. They should correct the falsehoods such as the Churchill bust and leave it at that. There is no need to lie about reasons for crowd sizes (at inaugurations or protests) which is an issue that only idiots care about.
Averageman
01-22-17, 10:51
It's rather silly to compare photos of the size of crowds at any given time based upon the photographers whimsy.
But...
I've got a couple of ideas.
Lets beat the little SJW little Brown Shirts "take it to the streets crowd" silly and then lock them up for lets say six months. Next time there is an "event" more people will feel it is family friendly if they don't have to face the possibility of fighting their way in and out.
Lets hold the inauguration on Saturday so the working people can attend without taking a hit in the wallet.
Lets hold the inauguration somewhere besides the Liberal bastion of Federal Jobs and Social Services. In other words, if you hold your kids Birthday Party in a Cat House, little Jimmy might not have a lot of his friends attend.
Just sayin' that you can set the tone any way you like, but facts are facts. Had Hillary been elected would the crowd have been bigger?
I think it's silly to even be concerned about the relative size of crowds at all. That Trump and Spicer chose their first "press conference" to berate the media, and that was ALL they did, over something so immediately trivial and inconsequential is distressing. Jesus...they even got universally barbecued on Fox for that miserable performance. Krauthammer was absolutely non-plussed. Truly baffled.
I take that in conjunction with the gist of Trump's remarks standing in front of the CIA's Memorial Wall...it definitely sets a tone that suggests that Trump's ego continues to more be important to him than the good of the country. I hope I'm proven wrong. And quickly. "You never get a second chance to make a first impression".
.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-22-17, 12:42
So the crowds on Saturday out did the crowds on Friday by millions, as if that negates the election.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/01/21/many-inauguration-day-protesters-will-face-felony-rioting-charges-prosecutors-say/
Felony arrests. That will cool their heels a bit.
Talking head today said that there is no Honeymoon period, because the marriage hasn't been consummated. The MSM/Progressives still don't accept him.
I can give a flying capital F if people don't like Trump, his style, or people- liking the status quo is taking us down the drain. Either this fixes it or takes us down faster, which just brings real fixes faster.
BuzzinSATX
01-22-17, 12:52
Honestly, we sit and listen and respond to everything the idiots on TV espouse, we're simply validating the crap they put out. Personally, I don't give a shit if Trump ever has a press conference with those knuckleheads, because every press conference Hillary or Obama had was nothing but propaganda and bullshit. So if Trump is tweeting his actual, honest thoughts and opinions, isn't that better, regardless if we like it or not? In the long run, it boils down to this… We had a choice between Trump or Hillary. Personally, I voted for the winner, and I have zero regrets thus far.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unfortunately, the way that Trump deals with his political opponents, including the stupid press, has a significant impact on the extent to which he can effect his rather ambitious political agenda.
Spicer was a bit silly and unprepared but it's near the bottom of things I'm concerned with right now.
If you pick apart everything Trump and his people say from here on out you'll have an exhausting job ahead of you and you'll be falling into the trap that has been set by the liberal media to paint Trump as an unpopular and illegitimate President. Hanging on every word and action waiting and wanting him to fail.
I don't think anything this administration's people do or say will be conventional or win a popularity contest but that to me is a good thing as long as they start to gain substance. If they continue to be blowhards but can also conduct business effectively then I couldn't care less.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-22-17, 14:11
Perhaps you should more faith in the polls and less faith in our ability to interpret the data (including mine). Humor me for a second: the RCP average of polls on the day before the election predicted a popular vote victory for Hillary by 3.2%. She actually won the popular vote by 2.1% which is well within the margin of error. Even the exit polling on Election Day, which is the least accurate form of polling, showed Hillary in deep KaKa. The only polls that I can find that were dead wrong and outside the MOE were state polls in MI, WI, and PA. That is 3 states out of 50 which is still 94% accuracy. So, feel free to believe what you want, but the national polling did exactly what it was supposed to do and did it accurately.
You analysis is largely meaningless because you barely touch on the state races. There are numerous videos of state-by-state breakdowns that were giving her EC landslides. General pop breakdowns are meaningless. That is the travesty of the polls. You want interfering with the election, how about the constant drone about how the race is over before the votes are cast.
Are you seriously saying that everyone saw that Trump had a chance, let alone win? That runs contrary to what I saw.
Are you seriously saying that everyone saw that Trump had a chance, let alone win? That runs contrary to what I saw.
Yeah, I don't know what each and every poll stated, but the Left openly admits they got it totally wrong. I saw polls in maybe the last two weeks switch over to Trump, one was out of CA I believe, but no matter what the Left was blind sided.... so what polls were they reading?.... Or.... they were seeing 'dead heat' polls or 'Trump favored' polls and reporting the opposite..
At any rate the Left is still in a concussed state and will openly say so. I heard them on the news today. They don't know what happened or what to do so they stand in the yard and squawk. That being the case... what polls were they reading?
Kelly Ann Conway sparring with Chuck Todd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcBblq-QOo4
Now listen to Tom Barrack -- you have to select video from bottom.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/
Little Chuckie doesn't look like the Left's favorite little 'know it all' any longer.
Averageman
01-22-17, 15:02
The arguments from the Left haven't changed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUozYwjLxrE
It's a bit funny to watch this since they still bring up the same points again and again, but he won the race and he is POTUS.
At some point you have to ask yourself, "Who are the Ones who are delusional?"
You analysis is largely meaningless because you barely touch on the state races. There are numerous videos of state-by-state breakdowns that were giving her EC landslides. General pop breakdowns are meaningless. That is the travesty of the polls. You want interfering with the election, how about the constant drone about how the race is over before the votes are cast.
Are you seriously saying that everyone saw that Trump had a chance, let alone win? That runs contrary to what I saw.
Here is what I seriously think:
1) Most of the odds makers outside of the press gave Trump about a 15-20% chance. I thought it was much less, but live and learn. It was a shocking upset. But everyday I'm asked to give someone "the odds" and every few months I'm stunned by the outcome - good or bad.
2) Despite an EC win, a fairly narrow majority of Americans (that's everyone including those who didn't vote) don't particularly like or approve of his methods.
3) Trump still seems to have fairly thin skin and is easily preoccupied with appearance over substance. He needs to get over that if he is going to be effective or overcome #2.
3) Trump still seems to have fairly thin skin and is easily preoccupied with appearance over substance. He needs to get over that if he is going to be effective or overcome #2.
Yes, on full display in his speech at the CIA, and even more so by his press conference later on. I was really hoping that he would put America over his own ego now that he's POTUS. I don't really care if his dick is bigger than Madonna's, nor does the rest of America, including Madonna.
.
Here is what I seriously think:
1) Most of the odds makers outside of the press gave Trump about a 15-20% chance. I thought it was much less, but live and learn. It was a shocking upset. But everyday I'm asked to give someone "the odds" and every few months I'm stunned by the outcome - good or bad.
2) Despite an EC win, a fairly narrow majority of Americans (that's everyone including those who didn't vote) don't particularly like or approve of his methods.
3) Trump still seems to have fairly thin skin and is easily preoccupied with appearance over substance. He needs to get over that if he is going to be effective or overcome #2.
Polls presented by biased organizations (and they are ALL biased) are meaningless drivel. You're better off sticking your dick in a live socket than worrying about what some poll states. Form your own opinions based on facts and argue it's merits. Stop trying using what some statisticians interpretations of leading questions is as a basis for your own opinions.
#3 above is very true. He will need to get over himself and move on with the job at hand. I'm OK with berating the MSM as they are in sore need of some figurative hickory shampoos, it do it about factual issues like say an false, inflammatory tweet about the MKL bust being removed. I'm ok with calling them on that crap. Leave the subjective my crowd was bigger than your crowd on the play ground.
BuzzinSATX
01-22-17, 17:08
Here is what I seriously think:
1) Most of the odds makers outside of the press gave Trump about a 15-20% chance. I thought it was much less, but live and learn. It was a shocking upset. But everyday I'm asked to give someone "the odds" and every few months I'm stunned by the outcome - good or bad.
2) Despite an EC win, a fairly narrow majority of Americans (that's everyone including those who didn't vote) don't particularly like or approve of his methods.
3) Trump still seems to have fairly thin skin and is easily preoccupied with appearance over substance. He needs to get over that if he is going to be effective or overcome #2.
I don't know that "thin skin" is really the right way to look at it. I thinkTrump understands he has and will continue to be pummeled by his opponents, which includes most of the press. And I think he has simply decided, unlike all his non- liberal peers, that he isn't going to let their unsubstantiated crap, regardless how minor, go unchecked. And I think there is some strategy to his actions.
Anyone remember the movie "Untouchables"? Sean Connery's line to Costner that went something like..."if they put one of ours in the hospital, we put one of theirs in the morgue!". I see that as Trump's attitude, and while it is very strange to us since we've not seen it employed, I won't say it isn't a smart play, because if nothing else, it gives much exposure to both the crap being thrown at him and Trumps attitude about not taking their shit.
Time will tell if it works, but I know many of my politically middle of the road friends are starting to see how CNN isnt the pillar of truth they once believed it to be.
I think it's silly to even be concerned about the relative size of crowds at all. That Trump and Spicer chose their first "press conference" to berate the media, and that was ALL they did, over something so immediately trivial and inconsequential is distressing. Jesus...they even got universally barbecued on Fox for that miserable performance. Krauthammer was absolutely non-plussed. Truly baffled.
I take that in conjunction with the gist of Trump's remarks standing in front of the CIA's Memorial Wall...it definitely sets a tone that suggests that Trump's ego continues to more be important to him than the good of the country. I hope I'm proven wrong. And quickly. "You never get a second chance to make a first impression".
.
First press conference? Who cares? It wasn't Trumps inaugural speech or message to the military. It was right up there with his first meeting with "people who didn't get their way and want to complain about it." Who gives a F about the press.
Spicer did the right thing, he set the tone. He called them on their bullshit and was done. You make it sound like Spicer started something. It was the MSM who on DAY ONE decided to play stupid games by deliberately manipulating photos to make it look like NOBODY wanted to see the Trump inauguration.
They have been pulling this shit all along. During the nomination process they did everything they could to suggest only a couple dozen toothless rednecks turned out to support Trump. The largest crowd they were willing to show was when the black guy who was there to cause trouble got punched in the head.
If Breitbart tried to pull the same game in 2008 and run picture to make Obama look unpopular it would be BREAKING NEWS on all the majors. So who cares what Spicer did to those who are actively trying to undermine Trump.
It's certainly better than 30 minutes of being fed a line of progressive bullshit from Gibbs.
Polls presented by biased organizations (and they are ALL biased) are meaningless drivel. You're better off sticking your dick in a live socket than worrying about what some poll states. Form your own opinions based on facts and argue it's merits. Stop trying using what some statisticians interpretations of leading questions is as a basis for your own opinions.
Regardless, polls and the media will carry far less weight with people going forward. Perception is realty and if most people perceive they were biased, they have little validity to most people. I don't think most intentionally biased as much old models of polling simply didn't apply, the media (most of whom where very biased) grasped at the polls like a drowning man making the effect far worse.
#3 above is very true. He will need to get over himself and move on with the job at hand. I'm OK with berating the MSM as they are in sore need of some figurative hickory shampoos, it do it about factual issues like say an false, inflammatory tweet about the MKL bust being removed. I'm ok with calling them on that crap. Leave the subjective my crowd was bigger than your crowd on the play ground.
Leopard can't change its spots. He may over time work his way into the position, but having no background or experience in this job as professional politician used to talking from sides of his pie hole, not even holding low office of any kind, seems unrealistic for people to expect a different behavior from his prior behavior. Past behavior always doing and excellent job of predicting future behavior and all that. Safe to say, his transition will be a lengthy one compared to prior POTUS.
Polls presented by biased organizations (and they are ALL biased) are meaningless drivel. You're better off sticking your dick in a live socket than worrying about what some poll states. Form your own opinions based on facts and argue it's merits. Stop trying using what some statisticians interpretations of leading questions is as a basis for your own opinions.
Regardless, polls and the media will carry far less weight with people going forward. Perception is realty and if most people perceive they were biased, they have little validity to most people. I don't think most intentionally biased as much old models of polling simply didn't apply, the media (most of whom where very biased) grasped at the polls like a drowning man making the effect far worse.
#3 above is very true. He will need to get over himself and move on with the job at hand. I'm OK with berating the MSM as they are in sore need of some figurative hickory shampoos, it do it about factual issues like say an false, inflammatory tweet about the MKL bust being removed. I'm ok with calling them on that crap. Leave the subjective my crowd was bigger than your crowd on the play ground.
Leopard can't change its spots. He may over time work his way into the position, but having no background or experience in this job as professional politician used to talking from sides of his pie hole, not even holding low office of any kind, seems unrealistic for people to expect a different behavior from his prior behavior. Past behavior always doing and excellent job of predicting future behavior and all that. Safe to say, his transition will be a lengthy one compared to prior POTUS.
BuzzinSATX
01-22-17, 17:14
First press conference? Who cares? It wasn't Trumps inaugural speech or message to the military. It was right up there with his first meeting with "people who didn't get their way and want to complain about it." Who gives a F about the press.
Spicer did the right thing, he set the tone. He called them on their bullshit and was done. You make it sound like Spicer started something. It was the MSM who on DAY ONE decided to play stupid games by deliberately manipulating photos to make it look like NOBODY wanted to see the Trump inauguration.
They have been pulling this shit all along. During the nomination process they did everything they could to suggest only a couple dozen toothless rednecks turned out to support Trump. The largest crowd they were willing to show was when the black guy who was there to cause trouble got punched in the head.
If Breitbart tried to pull the same game in 2008 and run picture to make Obama look unpopular it would be BREAKING NEWS on all the majors. So who cares what Spicer did to those who are actively trying to undermine Trump.
It's certainly better than 30 minutes of being fed a line of progressive bullshit from Gibbs.
Amen, Brother!
I don't know that "thin skin" is really the right way to look at it. I thinkTrump understands he has and will continue to be pummeled by his opponents, which includes most of the press. And I think he has simply decided, unlike all his non- liberal peers, that he isn't going to let their unsubstantiated crap, regardless how minor, go unchecked. And I think there is some strategy to his actions.
Anyone remember the movie "Untouchables"? Sean Connery's line to Costner that went something like..."if they put one of ours in the hospital, we put one of theirs in the morgue!". I see that as Trump's attitude, and while it is very strange to us since we've not seen it employed, I won't say it isn't a smart play, because if nothing else, it gives much exposure to both the crap being thrown at him and Trumps attitude about not taking their shit.
Time will tell if it works, but I know many of my politically middle of the road friends are starting to see how CNN isnt the pillar of truth they once believed it to be.
Not just CNN...this is the conversation @ CBS early on election night:
https://vimeo.com/200595484
The hell of it is, I don't think he even once was trailing in the EC tally.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't know that "thin skin" is really the right way to look at it. I thinkTrump understands he has and will continue to be pummeled by his opponents, which includes most of the press. And I think he has simply decided, unlike all his non- liberal peers, that he isn't going to let their unsubstantiated crap, regardless how minor, go unchecked. And I think there is some strategy to his actions.
Anyone remember the movie "Untouchables"? Sean Connery's line to Costner that went something like..."if they put one of ours in the hospital, we put one of theirs in the morgue!". I see that as Trump's attitude, and while it is very strange to us since we've not seen it employed, I won't say it isn't a smart play, because if nothing else, it gives much exposure to both the crap being thrown at him and Trumps attitude about not taking their shit.
Time will tell if it works, but I know many of my politically middle of the road friends are starting to see how CNN isnt the pillar of truth they once believed it to be.
Not just CNN...this was the conversation on CBS early on election night:
https://vimeo.com/200595743
The hell of it is, I don't think he ever trailed in the EC tally.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
First press conference? Who cares? It wasn't Trumps inaugural speech or message to the military. It was right up there with his first meeting with "people who didn't get their way and want to complain about it." Who gives a F about the press.
The media sucks, but sadly this is about Trump's ego.
.
The media sucks, but this is about Trump's ego.
That's true & this is right up there with Trump tweeting to Arnold about the ratings of the new Apprentice.
He needs to stop the bullshit and get down to business.
FlyingHunter
01-22-17, 19:15
Trump needs a suppressor on his twitter. Pass the HPA and we won't have to wait 9+ months.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-22-17, 19:19
Last call had come and gone, the lights come up and you look around to see what left. Neither option was pretty or our first choice, but I picked the one that wouldn't nag me to death and let me keep my guns. Let's ride this one till it breaks down and then move on.
My read: Press secretary is bad cop, Kelly Ann Conway is the good cop
He's giving the press corps some shots across the bow. They ran two entirely bogus items that were widely reported on that day, when they had several legit issues to cover that got no airtime. He just hit the mule in the head with a 2x4. What are they going to do, say bad things about him? Make stuff up? Promote negative issues and underreport on positive? They are doing that already, and have been.
Then KAC goes on air, positive, keeps her cool, for every idiot question they raise she responds with 10 positive things they should be covering instead. Most people I know are amazed at the job she's doing, and even if they don't like Trump, acknowledge that the points she is raising about the press are valid.
He's been pretty effective about getting an unfiltered message out, even if it grates on our nerves. I expect the twitter stuff to continue. And more press corps freeze outs until they behave with more decorum.
He's meeting widely with the press, it's just not the mainstream press corps. It's also interesting that I'm seeing more depth and balance in international coverage in many cases than mainstream (ABC/CBS/NBC/NYT) television media. Not that he is liked internationally, just that they are reporting on things that don't make the US news cycle.
As far as I'm concerned, his strategy may be working. There is nothing that says he has to cater to the press. They are already hostile, do we really think they are going to swing around right away? So keep em honest, ignore the ones who run bogus stories like the MLK bust, dossier, misrepresented empty seat shots, etc.
Trump needs a suppressor on his twitter. Pass the HPA and we won't have to wait 9+ months.
Might as well get your stamp application in the mail now. It will be a lot longer than 9 months before the HPA ever hits his desk. If ever.
The media sucks, but sadly this is about Trump's ego.
.
Because that is what you believe? Or do you have some special inside knowledge?
This was about the media screwing with Trump on DAY ONE. What would you have him do? Should he have taken it in the ass like Carter? Declared a "teaching moment" like Obama? What would you have a self respecting person do when somebody else is trying to distort their image and they hold a position of importance?
Trump isn't going to be a pussy about this and get on the red phone and say "knock it off guys." You now have a president who isn't going to just take shit from the media and call it gravy. You say ego, I say a guy who will stand up and call bullshit when something is bullshit.
It's the first day of school and everyone is going to see who is who. The media decided to test Trump and this was the response. Others are standing by to try and pull bigger shit. N. Korea, China and a dozen Islamic states are all looking to see if Trump is going to show weakness they can take advantage of.
Not sure why everyone doesn't understand all of this. Got to really have it out for Trump because he wasn't nice to the freaking media.
Because that is what you believe? Or do you have some special inside knowledge?
This was about the media screwing with Trump on DAY ONE. What would you have him do? Should he have taken it in the ass like Carter? Declared a "teaching moment" like Obama? What would you have a self respecting person do when somebody else is trying to distort their image and they hold a position of importance?
Trump isn't going to be a pussy about this and get on the red phone and say "knock it off guys." You now have a president who isn't going to just take shit from the media and call it gravy. You say ego, I say a guy who will stand up and call bullshit when something is bullshit.
It's the first day of school and everyone is going to see who is who. The media decided to test Trump and this was the response. Others are standing by to try and pull bigger shit. N. Korea, China and a dozen Islamic states are all looking to see if Trump is going to show weakness they can take advantage of.
Not sure why everyone doesn't understand all of this. Got to really have it out for Trump because he wasn't nice to the freaking media.
I would have preferred that Secretary Spicer channeled Reagan's singular wit as opposed to Alex Jones' histrionics.
And there is no way there were more people at Trump's inauguration than Obama's.
Averageman
01-22-17, 21:30
Because that is what you believe? Or do you have some special inside knowledge?
This was about the media screwing with Trump on DAY ONE. What would you have him do? Should he have taken it in the ass like Carter? Declared a "teaching moment" like Obama? What would you have a self respecting person do when somebody else is trying to distort their image and they hold a position of importance?
Trump isn't going to be a pussy about this and get on the red phone and say "knock it off guys." You now have a president who isn't going to just take shit from the media and call it gravy. You say ego, I say a guy who will stand up and call bullshit when something is bullshit.
It's the first day of school and everyone is going to see who is who. The media decided to test Trump and this was the response. Others are standing by to try and pull bigger shit. N. Korea, China and a dozen Islamic states are all looking to see if Trump is going to show weakness they can take advantage of.
Not sure why everyone doesn't understand all of this. Got to really have it out for Trump because he wasn't nice to the freaking media.
This is the Winner.
Also, what we are seeing is what is being written and what is on tape.
Who wants to guess what snide and childish antics are going on that we aren't seeing? I'm just hoping I get to see someone from CNN get skull drug out of a White House Press briefing soon.
I would have preferred that Secretary Spicer channeled Reagan's singular wit as opposed to Alex Jones' histrionics.
And there is no way there were more people at Trump's inauguration than Obama's.
Not sure anyone here is actually suggesting Trump had the larger turnout, Spicer should not have suggested otherwise and simply taken the MSM to task for their distortions. While we are at it Conway needs to stop trying to be a press secretary and use "fake news" words like alternative facts, especially when dealing with experienced folks like Chuck Todd. It makes both of them look as bad as the MSM they are criticizing.
It's one thing to not take any BS, it's quite another to offer up your own alternate BS.
What would you have him do? Should he have taken it in the ass like Carter? Declared a "teaching moment" like Obama? What would you have a self respecting person do when somebody else is trying to distort their image and they hold a position of importance?
I would have had Spicer announce that the White House Correspondent who tweeted the false news about the Churchill bust was having their credentials pulled for a year. Moreover, any news agency with more than two verifiable fake news events in a year will lose access for all of their reporters for a year. The hits them where it counts - in the pocketbooks. I then would have had him list all of the Obama EO's that he overturned that day.
I would not have:
1) Sent Spicer out with some BS excuses as for why one crowd might have been bigger than another. Nobody other than the most ardent Trumpets care about the crowd or the protests. The rest of us think that it was a decent inauguration event and his speech was on par for what the country needs.
2) Complained about the media in front of the CIA Memorial. Was it the worst thing in the world? No, but national shrines are not the best places for an airing of the grievances.
Because that is what you believe? Or do you have some special inside knowledge?
Well, yeah...it's what I believe. An opinion. Just like you get to express yours, using your own special inside knowledge, right?
I would have had Spicer announce that the White House Correspondent who tweeted the false news about the Churchill bust was having their credentials pulled for a year. Moreover, any news agency with more than two verifiable fake news events in a year will lose access for all of their reporters for a year. The hits them where it counts - in the pocketbooks. I then would have had him list all of the Obama EO's that he overturned that day.
I would not have:
1) Sent Spicer out with some BS excuses as for why one crowd might have been bigger than another. Nobody other than the most ardent Trumpets care about the crowd or the protests. The rest of us think that it was a decent inauguration event and his speech was on par for what the country needs.
2) Complained about the media in front of the CIA Memorial. Was it the worst thing in the world? No, but national shrines are not the best places for an airing of the grievances.
Now that would be entertaining.
I would have had Spicer announce that the White House Correspondent who tweeted the false news about the Churchill bust was having their credentials pulled for a year. Moreover, any news agency with more than two verifiable fake news events in a year will lose access for all of their reporters for a year. The hits them where it counts - in the pocketbooks. I then would have had him list all of the Obama EO's that he overturned that day.
I would not have:
1) Sent Spicer out with some BS excuses as for why one crowd might have been bigger than another. Nobody other than the most ardent Trumpets care about the crowd or the protests. The rest of us think that it was a decent inauguration event and his speech was on par for what the country needs.
2) Complained about the media in front of the CIA Memorial. Was it the worst thing in the world? No, but national shrines are not the best places for an airing of the grievances.
All that would have been much better, but we've had 8 years of far worse. Especially agree about airing any grievance (real or imagined) in front of a memorial wall. But again, we've seen Obama do far worse and get a complete pass.
Well, yeah...it's what I believe. An opinion. Just like you get to express yours, using your own special inside knowledge, right?
I'm not the one who came here claiming to know a man's motivations.
I'm not the one who came here claiming to know a man's motivations.
No. You would never do something like that.
Grand58742
01-23-17, 07:21
Didn't think this deserved a new thread, but made me lol at the protests.
http://www.volnation.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=127219&d=1485156453
I would have had Spicer announce that the White House Correspondent who tweeted the false news about the Churchill bust was having their credentials pulled for a year. Moreover, any news agency with more than two verifiable fake news events in a year will lose access for all of their reporters for a year. The hits them where it counts - in the pocketbooks. I then would have had him list all of the Obama EO's that he overturned that day.
This would have been much better than what occurred and I would like to see that policy implemented. Plus Spicer needs to work on his delivery. It was awful!
I would have had Spicer announce that the White House Correspondent who tweeted the false news about the Churchill bust was having their credentials pulled for a year. Moreover, any news agency with more than two verifiable fake news events in a year will lose access for all of their reporters for a year. The hits them where it counts - in the pocketbooks. I then would have had him list all of the Obama EO's that he overturned that day.
I would not have:
1) Sent Spicer out with some BS excuses as for why one crowd might have been bigger than another. Nobody other than the most ardent Trumpets care about the crowd or the protests. The rest of us think that it was a decent inauguration event and his speech was on par for what the country needs.
2) Complained about the media in front of the CIA Memorial. Was it the worst thing in the world? No, but national shrines are not the best places for an airing of the grievances.
1000+ to this. They could have made the same point without sounding like sniveling weasels.
Trump needs to get his stuff squared away jiffy quick. He has momentum that he should carry instead of piss away looking childish like his opponents.
Dist. Expert 26
01-23-17, 09:45
Saw this morning that Trump is signing an EO to pull us out of TPP. We're off to a good start.
Saw this morning that Trump is signing an EO to pull us out of TPP. We're off to a good start.
And to renegotiate NAFTA:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-23/trump-said-to-sign-executive-order-on-trans-pacific-pact-monday
My TSP is going to like this
No. You would never do something like that.
Not sure where you got lost. Post #74 you asserted the following:
"The media sucks, but sadly this is about Trump's ego."
I simply asked if you had some kind of inside proof of that and then offered several other motivating factors. Then somehow it turned into you making comments about me.
And to renegotiate NAFTA:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-23/trump-said-to-sign-executive-order-on-trans-pacific-pact-monday
And a federal hiring freeze, and the "Mexico City" abortion ban is back on.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-23/trump-declares-federal-hiring-freeze-and-renews-abortion-policy
And today we have a polite, and largely productive press briefing. Covered many areas, probably 15-20 different questions.
But notably: The press corps was polite. Spicer and Trump got their attention. Like a 2x4 across the forehead.
Spicer held his ground when they went into attack mode, really pointed out when they were pressing points on accuracy and "alternate facts" about their inaccuracies and also that the press always reserves the right to make a retraction.
And amazingly (or not), they pretty much backed down. Or shut up, as when Spicer asked a question they did not want not answer. (like: "You are questioning my facts, what are your numbers?")
Had seen snippets on TV, and just now read the transcript. I thought Spicer did a great job, as did the press, which was nice to see.
I was actually pretty impressed with both sides!
Not sure where you got lost. Post #74 you asserted the following:
"The media sucks, but sadly this is about Trump's ego."
I simply asked if you had some kind of inside proof of that and then offered several other motivating factors. Then somehow it turned into you making comments about me.
It's all opinion around here when it comes to politics. Your opinion, my opinion...I don't have any more inside info than you do. I just have an opinion, like you do. In my opinion, the media sucks, but sadly that whole thing was about Trumps ego. Today's press briefing was more productive. Maybe both Trump and the media got the message -- the media from Spicer and Spicer from conservative pushback (eg Fox News). I would buy the "media needs a 2x4 upside the head" as being the real plan all along if Trump hadn't indulged himself with the "whose crowd is bigger" speech in front of the CIA's Memorial Wall.
.
if Trump hadn't indulged himself with the "whose crowd is bigger" speech in front of the CIA's Memorial Wall.
Okay, full confession, a police job and a family prevented me from collecting really cool things like watches, and exotic weapons. Howsomeever, I did have enough money to collect every comic that Bill Watterson (Calvin and Hobbes) and Garry Trudeau (Doonesbury) has published.
Trudeau, I feel, masterfully skewers everybody on the petard of fairly truthful satire. As the Trump election machine gained momentum I revisited 'Give Them Nymphs Some Hooters' vintage 1989.
So obviously, as soon as 'Yuge: 30 Years of Doonesbury on Trump' was released I got it.
I can hear Trump 'It is huge, a great book, Trudeau has written more about me than Barack Obama, because I'm already a huge success as President.'
Trudeau has probably taken to wearing Depends, he is no doubt constantly on the edge of pissing himself with joy over the material he is going to work with for the next...well, who knows...6 months? two years? four years? eight?
Whether you are a Trumpet or not, you have to admit President Trump is likely to give us a lively ride.
And today we have a polite, and largely productive press briefing. Covered many areas, probably 15-20 different questions.
But notably: The press corps was polite. Spicer and Trump got their attention. Like a 2x4 across the forehead.
Spicer held his ground when they went into attack mode, really pointed out when they were pressing points on accuracy and "alternate facts" about their inaccuracies and also that the press always reserves the right to make a retraction.
And amazingly (or not), they pretty much backed down. Or shut up, as when Spicer asked a question they did not want not answer. (like: "You are questioning my facts, what are your numbers?")
Had seen snippets on TV, and just now read the transcript. I thought Spicer did a great job, as did the press, which was nice to see.
I was actually pretty impressed with both sides!
Pretty much.
Don't expect it to resonate as I'm sure the media is thinking of the next trap to set.
I personally think everybody in the group around Trump was so tired from the event that they were pissed about how hard they had worked and to have the press already starting crap when the inauguration hadn't even really begun yet. Still no reason for Spicer to go off the reservation but I can understand the frustration level.
ETA: I noticed today he pretty much said his frustration was the reason.
And today we have a polite, and largely productive press briefing. Covered many areas, probably 15-20 different questions.
But notably: The press corps was polite. Spicer and Trump got their attention. Like a 2x4 across the forehead.
Spicer held his ground when they went into attack mode, really pointed out when they were pressing points on accuracy and "alternate facts" about their inaccuracies and also that the press always reserves the right to make a retraction.
And amazingly (or not), they pretty much backed down. Or shut up, as when Spicer asked a question they did not want not answer. (like: "You are questioning my facts, what are your numbers?")
Had seen snippets on TV, and just now read the transcript. I thought Spicer did a great job, as did the press, which was nice to see.
I was actually pretty impressed with both sides!
Amazing how that works.
It's all opinion around here when it comes to politics. Your opinion, my opinion...I don't have any more inside info than you do. I just have an opinion, like you do.
Not really. Many times there are folks on this forum with some inside track information. That is why I asked rather than just assumed.
1000+ to this. They could have made the same point without sounding like sniveling weasels.
Trump needs to get his stuff squared away jiffy quick. He has momentum that he should carry instead of piss away looking childish like his opponents.
I suppose how Trump sounds largely depends on how you viewed him over the past 2 years. To his ardent supporters, his speeches probably sound like righteous freedom; his detractors hear childish sniveling. I hear a mixed bag.
Saw this morning that Trump is signing an EO to pull us out of TPP. We're off to a good start.
And to renegotiate NAFTA:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-23/trump-said-to-sign-executive-order-on-trans-pacific-pact-monday
I will admit that this is a big blind spot for me as my knowledge of NAFTA and TPP is superficial at best. Moreover, they seems to have a lot of crossover support between parties and ideologies. I agree that TPP is dead since it is not a signed law or ratified treaty . Something tells me that overturning NAFTA will be harder since it is a signed law. Finally, I'm unsure of the unintended consequences of ending these as they are simply not topics that I've researched.
I will say that I was very encouraged by the federal hiring freeze, the rollback of regulations, and the movement toward tax reform. These seem far more impactful than either trade policies. I was also impressed that he seems to be fulfilling campaign promises.
Overall, a good day for Trump and the country.
Agreed Sens, but I call on you to change your user name to #Trump2020 as medicine! [emoji15]
Agreed Sens, but I call on you to change your user name to #Trump2020 as medicine! [emoji15]
Although I have some real problems with at least 1 cabinet pick, I think that he has done a pretty good job with the transition. Here is what really gives me a glimmer of hope that he has got what it takes - he seems unafraid to upset people. For example, some of his trade protectionism appeals to the left while simultaneously slapping Int'l Planned Parenthood upside the head.
The real test of Trump's metal comes with healthcare. Mark my words and mark them well - there is no viable plan that gives everybody access to quality care, and there is no way to have affordable insurance when when insurers must accept pre-existing conditions. Sure, you can give everyone "heath insurance" but that does not equate to access to quality care. Just ask people on Medicaid or Vets. Moreover, you are functionally uninsured when you make $50K, spend $500 per month on a premium to get a plan with a $2500 deductible, 15% copay, and your maximum OOP expense is $5K. So, Trump is about to face a lose-lose situation IF his goal is to make everyone happy while creating a financial sustainable system. In every free society there are winners and losers...
Although I have some real problems with at least 1 cabinet pick, I think that he has done a pretty good job with the transition. Here is what really gives me a glimmer of hope that he has got what it takes - he seems unafraid to upset people. For example, some of his trade protectionism appeals to the left while simultaneously slapping Int'l Planned Parenthood upside the head.
The real test of Trump's metal comes with healthcare. Mark my words and mark them well - there is no viable plan that gives everybody access to quality care, and there is no way to have affordable insurance when when insurers must accept pre-existing conditions. Sure, you can give everyone "heath insurance" but that does not equate to access to quality care. Just ask people on Medicaid or Vets. Moreover, you are functionally uninsured when you make $50K, spend $500 per month on a premium to get a plan with a $2500 deductible, 15% copay, and your maximum OOP expense is $5K. So, Trump is about to face a lose-lose situation IF his goal is to make everyone happy while creating a financial sustainable system. In every free society there are winners and losers...
Would you agree that some health care coverage items are a necessity and some should be "optional" at additional cost? Do you agree that Insurers, HCP's and Rx mills should assess their profit margins and provide some low to no cost necessity care to individuals with pre-existing conditions, rather than force those costs on the insured pool?
I think he can make it work, but only if he brings the big boys in and renegotiates their cut. At the same time, he can ease their burden by cutting federal HC regs down to a manageable size. A balanced carrot and stick are needed here. It's not the doctors, nurses, techs and support staff that drive costs sky high, but the outsized profit margins for the majority shareholders and execs, along with the agenda driven perception that every American should run to the ER or urgent care at the first sniffle. :(
Would you agree that some health care coverage items are a necessity and some should be "optional" at additional cost? Do you agree that Insurers, HCP's and Rx mills should assess their profit margins and provide some low to no cost necessity care to individuals with pre-existing conditions, rather than force those costs on the insured pool?
I think he can make it work, but only if he brings the big boys in and renegotiates their cut. At the same time, he can ease their burden by cutting federal HC regs down to a manageable size. A balanced carrot and stick are needed here. It's not the doctors, nurses, techs and support staff that drive costs sky high, but the outsized profit margins for the majority shareholders and execs, along with the agenda driven perception that every American should run to the ER or urgent care at the first sniffle. :(
I think you have a pretty good handle on it EXCEPT: I think he can make it work, but only if he brings the big boys in and renegotiates their cut. The big boys will fight it. They gutted the ACA. Here is an excerpt from an article about Steven Brill's book, Bitter Pill which explains in a nutshell:
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has spent a quarter of a billion dollars since 1998 on lobbying. Brill shows what that means in day-to-day negotiations. Billy Tauzin, a former congressman and, until 2010, the trade group’s president, is the voice of Big Pharma in the book.
Tauzin is everywhere in the negotiations. He does not so much haggle as dictate policy, identifying the precise amount the industry would be willing to give up and still support the bill. Tauzin successfully guts comparative effectiveness research under Obamacare — Big Pharma’s profits are threatened by studies comparing which drugs work effectively at lower costs. With projections showing that the pharmaceutical industry will make at least $200 billion more with expanded coverage, Tauzin and his group “kick in” what amounts to $80 billion in givebacks, in exchange for killing any chance of containing the costs of drugs. He agrees to spend $70 million in political action funds supporting reform, and when pressured to raise his industry’s contribution to $120 billion, he sits tight, confident that he can kill the bill. Describing Tauzin’s position, Brill is matter-of-fact: “He knew they could never get 60 votes in the Senate if the drug makers switched sides and began financing a different set of ads, and he said so.”
“Depending on one’s view,” Brill writes, “this secret deal between Obama political operatives, PhRMA, staffers from the Senate Finance Committee who had just brokered a multibillion-dollar deal with *PhRMA, major unions and other liberal groups was proof that Washington was finally buckling down, coming together and getting the people’s business done; or it was Washington at its worst: liberal groups selling out to big business to accommodate all the groups’ special interests.” https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/books/review/americas-bitter-pill-by-steven-brill.html?_r=0 (NOTE: I read the book and learned somethings,, the first third was to me fascinating, the rest was a trudge)
Here is another explanation from another source:
Under one of his predecessors, former Louisiana Republican Rep. Billy Tauzin, the industry moved smartly and swiftly as Obamacare was taking shape. It was first to the negotiating table with Senate Finance Committee Democrats and the White House. The drug companies agreed to pay $90 billion to help fund the law’s insurance expansion — an expansion that would also happen to deliver millions of new, paying customers to the drug companies.
Otherwise, drug companies were left to carry on business as usual:
- No reimportation of medicines from countries like Canada, where they’re sold at a fraction of what Americans pay — an idea that has reemerged recently but has not gotten traction.
- No government negotiations of drug price — although both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have endorsed Medicare negotiations. Congress has repeatedly nixed the idea.
Democrats had majorities in both houses of Congress when the health law deal was cut, but the negotiators caved on their party’s longstanding proposals — seen as a mortal threat by pharma — in exchange for the industry’s buy-in and financial support for getting the historic health reform bill enacted. They’ve been talking about the spiking drug prices, and holding hearings. But no action agenda has taken hold.
Looking back six or seven years, Tauzin explained that PhRMA decided it was better off making a deal — and heading off a more radical health transformation, like the kind of single payer plan Bernie Sanders ran on this year, or even the public option that Clinton has endorsed.
“We had a choice [to] make sure it wasn’t going to be a single-payer government system,” Tauzin told POLITICO, recalling PhRMA’s thinking at the time. “If we were not at the table, it would be likely we would become the meal.” The agreement was brokered with Senate Democrats and the White House in the early summer of 2009.
Since then, drug spending has spiked to historically high levels — 2014 saw the biggest increases in more than decade. The hikes were fueled by Obamacare’s coverage expansion, a wave of new treatments and industry chutzpah.
It’s not just breakthrough drugs that are soaring. Drugmakers are hiking prices of older medicines too; pharma bad boy Martin Shkreli’s 5,000 percent increase of the AIDS drug Daraprim last year was the most brazen example, but hardly the only one.
The Obama administration has few ways of confronting drug costs — and critics of the 2009 health law deal say it tied their hands.
Both the White House and Senate Democrats were acutely aware of how health care industries torpedoed the Hillary Clinton-led reform effort in 1993-94. They were keen to avoid the same fate. Once PhRMA signed on to the 2009 bill, it ultimately spent $150 million in advertising to support it, largely to prop up vulnerable lawmakers who were backing health reform. If PhRMA had tapped that war chest to fight the bill, it would have sunk the effort, supporters of the deal said.
“We needed 60 votes in the Senate; we got 60. We needed 218 votes in the House; we got 219,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a health care advocacy group and ally of the White House that worked to corral industry support for the bill. “Had structural changes to pharmaceutical pricing been in the bill, the Affordable Care Act would not have been enacted.”
Although I have some real problems with at least 1 cabinet pick, I think that he has done a pretty good job with the transition. Here is what really gives me a glimmer of hope that he has got what it takes - he seems unafraid to upset people. For example, some of his trade protectionism appeals to the left while simultaneously slapping Int'l Planned Parenthood upside the head.
The real test of Trump's metal comes with healthcare. Mark my words and mark them well - there is no viable plan that gives everybody access to quality care, and there is no way to have affordable insurance when when insurers must accept pre-existing conditions. Sure, you can give everyone "heath insurance" but that does not equate to access to quality care. Just ask people on Medicaid or Vets. Moreover, you are functionally uninsured when you make $50K, spend $500 per month on a premium to get a plan with a $2500 deductible, 15% copay, and your maximum OOP expense is $5K. So, Trump is about to face a lose-lose situation IF his goal is to make everyone happy while creating a financial sustainable system. In every free society there are winners and losers...
I would be thrilled to have that plan under the (un) ACA. The ACA got millions of people insured who can afford it via subsidies while making millions of others (me included) functionally uninsured which at best, amounts to catastrophic insurance at costs that are bankrupting people.
One reason the ACA was supposed to save $ was by stopping people without insurance from using the ER as their first line medical care, but I'm not aware of any data that has shown the net effect to have been a benefit to states. Have not looked into that one.
I think you have a pretty good handle on it EXCEPT: I think he can make it work, but only if he brings the big boys in and renegotiates their cut. The big boys will fight it. They gutted the ACA. Here is an excerpt from an article about Steven Brill's book, Bitter Pill which explains in a nutshell:
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has spent a quarter of a billion dollars since 1998 on lobbying. Brill shows what that means in day-to-day negotiations. Billy Tauzin, a former congressman and, until 2010, the trade group’s president, is the voice of Big Pharma in the book.
Tauzin is everywhere in the negotiations. He does not so much haggle as dictate policy, identifying the precise amount the industry would be willing to give up and still support the bill. Tauzin successfully guts comparative effectiveness research under Obamacare — Big Pharma’s profits are threatened by studies comparing which drugs work effectively at lower costs. With projections showing that the pharmaceutical industry will make at least $200 billion more with expanded coverage, Tauzin and his group “kick in” what amounts to $80 billion in givebacks, in exchange for killing any chance of containing the costs of drugs. He agrees to spend $70 million in political action funds supporting reform, and when pressured to raise his industry’s contribution to $120 billion, he sits tight, confident that he can kill the bill. Describing Tauzin’s position, Brill is matter-of-fact: “He knew they could never get 60 votes in the Senate if the drug makers switched sides and began financing a different set of ads, and he said so.”
“Depending on one’s view,” Brill writes, “this secret deal between Obama political operatives, PhRMA, staffers from the Senate Finance Committee who had just brokered a multibillion-dollar deal with *PhRMA, major unions and other liberal groups was proof that Washington was finally buckling down, coming together and getting the people’s business done; or it was Washington at its worst: liberal groups selling out to big business to accommodate all the groups’ special interests.” https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/books/review/americas-bitter-pill-by-steven-brill.html?_r=0 (NOTE: I read the book and learned somethings,, the first third was to me fascinating, the rest was a trudge)
Here is another explanation from another source:
Under one of his predecessors, former Louisiana Republican Rep. Billy Tauzin, the industry moved smartly and swiftly as Obamacare was taking shape. It was first to the negotiating table with Senate Finance Committee Democrats and the White House. The drug companies agreed to pay $90 billion to help fund the law’s insurance expansion — an expansion that would also happen to deliver millions of new, paying customers to the drug companies.
Otherwise, drug companies were left to carry on business as usual:
- No reimportation of medicines from countries like Canada, where they’re sold at a fraction of what Americans pay — an idea that has reemerged recently but has not gotten traction.
- No government negotiations of drug price — although both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have endorsed Medicare negotiations. Congress has repeatedly nixed the idea.
Democrats had majorities in both houses of Congress when the health law deal was cut, but the negotiators caved on their party’s longstanding proposals — seen as a mortal threat by pharma — in exchange for the industry’s buy-in and financial support for getting the historic health reform bill enacted. They’ve been talking about the spiking drug prices, and holding hearings. But no action agenda has taken hold.
Looking back six or seven years, Tauzin explained that PhRMA decided it was better off making a deal — and heading off a more radical health transformation, like the kind of single payer plan Bernie Sanders ran on this year, or even the public option that Clinton has endorsed.
“We had a choice [to] make sure it wasn’t going to be a single-payer government system,” Tauzin told POLITICO, recalling PhRMA’s thinking at the time. “If we were not at the table, it would be likely we would become the meal.” The agreement was brokered with Senate Democrats and the White House in the early summer of 2009.
Since then, drug spending has spiked to historically high levels — 2014 saw the biggest increases in more than decade. The hikes were fueled by Obamacare’s coverage expansion, a wave of new treatments and industry chutzpah.
It’s not just breakthrough drugs that are soaring. Drugmakers are hiking prices of older medicines too; pharma bad boy Martin Shkreli’s 5,000 percent increase of the AIDS drug Daraprim last year was the most brazen example, but hardly the only one.
The Obama administration has few ways of confronting drug costs — and critics of the 2009 health law deal say it tied their hands.
Both the White House and Senate Democrats were acutely aware of how health care industries torpedoed the Hillary Clinton-led reform effort in 1993-94. They were keen to avoid the same fate. Once PhRMA signed on to the 2009 bill, it ultimately spent $150 million in advertising to support it, largely to prop up vulnerable lawmakers who were backing health reform. If PhRMA had tapped that war chest to fight the bill, it would have sunk the effort, supporters of the deal said.
“We needed 60 votes in the Senate; we got 60. We needed 218 votes in the House; we got 219,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a health care advocacy group and ally of the White House that worked to corral industry support for the bill. “Had structural changes to pharmaceutical pricing been in the bill, the Affordable Care Act would not have been enacted.”
I agree and if it were up to me, drug industry advertising to the public would be banned outright. Where Trump differs is his direct information pipeline to the masses. He can turn the tables and use weaponized narrative to our benefit. It's easy to vilify big pharma because they make unbalanced decisions based on greed.
2017 needs to become the year that "country first" becomes the rallying cry.
I think you have a pretty good handle on it EXCEPT: I think he can make it work, but only if he brings the big boys in and renegotiates their cut. The big boys will fight it. They gutted the ACA.
A major reason it's been such a cluster fu^%. All costs were passed onto us. The big boys, in particular pharma, made sure they didn't share the costs. Unless Trump et al are going to be as tough on negotiations as they claim, it will be same chit different day.
I agree and if it were up to me, drug industry advertising to the public would be banned outright. Where Trump differs is his direct information pipeline to the masses. He can turn the tables and use weaponized narrative to our benefit. It's easy to vilify big pharma because they make unbalanced decisions based on greed.
2017 needs to become the year that "country first" becomes the rallying cry.
Agreed. The claim drug prices are high due to R&D and that's BS. They spend far more on marketing than R&D.
More intel: 5 Reasons Prescription Drug Prices Are So High in the U.S. via JAMA study:
http://time.com/money/4462919/prescription-drug-prices-too-high/
The article is missing a few other reasons. What pharma loses in profits on X drug in other markets, is passed onto the US.
The above is tip of the iceberg. Of the major players, pharma, insurance, hospitals/medical providers, the primary driver of the insane prices all over is driven my pharma.
And don't even get me started on their QC issues for which they continue to get away with no real media covered due to the $$ to them for advertising, etc.
Dist. Expert 26
01-24-17, 14:35
And today we have Trump pushing forward on pipeline projects that Obama stalled out.
The left is going nuts now. Talk about delish.
And today we have Trump pushing forward on pipeline projects that Obama stalled out.
The left is going nuts now. Talk about delish.
They are insane, frothing at the mouth. They are powerless and have only the MSM to help them scream louder. And half the country doesn't care.
Averageman
01-24-17, 14:48
He says he will announce his choice for the SCOTUS early next week.
They are going to HOWL !
He says he will announce his choice for the SCOTUS early next week.
They are going to HOWL !
It will be interesting to see if McConnel will invoke a rules change (nuclear option) to get by the inevitable filibuster. Schumer has already declared that an 8-Justice Supreme Court is preferable to any SCOTUS pick of Trump's. Plus, there's that whole Merrick Garland thing.
Just got off a telecon with some of our Corp people in the pentagon. They said that the mood has changed significantly for the better in the last few days
Nate
NAAH Tool Works
Naahtoolworks@gmail.com
Just got off a telecon with some of our Corp people in the pentagon. They said that the mood has changed significantly for the better in the last few days
Nate
NAAH Tool Works
Naahtoolworks@gmail.com
They must be siphoning it from the EPA! :D
The article is missing a few other reasons. What pharma loses in profits on X drug in other markets, is passed onto the US.
This is one of the things you rarely ever hear about. The reason why Canada and others get away with price fixing is that the USA is the make it up market space. Not sure how that can be fixed though.
Just got off a telecon with some of our Corp people in the pentagon. They said that the mood has changed significantly for the better in the last few days
Nate
NAAH Tool Works
Naahtoolworks@gmail.com
Do you mean overall mood, across the board? Or something else?
How far up the line can Trump appoint or seek to control the BATF?
I see he has an FCC appointment now but I have heard zero about BATF. What potential exists here?
Would you agree that some health care coverage items are a necessity and some should be "optional" at additional cost? Do you agree that Insurers, HCP's and Rx mills should assess their profit margins and provide some low to no cost necessity care to individuals with pre-existing conditions, rather than force those costs on the insured pool?
I think he can make it work, but only if he brings the big boys in and renegotiates their cut. At the same time, he can ease their burden by cutting federal HC regs down to a manageable size. A balanced carrot and stick are needed here. It's not the doctors, nurses, techs and support staff that drive costs sky high, but the outsized profit margins for the majority shareholders and execs, along with the agenda driven perception that every American should run to the ER or urgent care at the first sniffle. :(
I agree that individuals have different healthcare needs and should be able to purchase plans on the free market. I also think that private insurers, like other private enterprises, have a responsibility to their shareholders. They are no more responsible for providing low or no cost care to those with pre-existing conditions than a grocery store has to feeding the hungry. If they choose to do it, great - give them a cookie and a tax break. But private enterprises should not be forced at the tip of a spear to provide free shit. Otherwise, the guy wielding the spear (i.e. Uncle Sam riding on the back of the tax payer) must come in to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. #MarketDistortionScrewsEverbodyintheEnd
I also think that you need to define "making it work." Is it giving everybody mildly crappy coverage? Is it allowing the middle class to have great care and the poor to have really shitty care? Do we just control costs allow some people to go without? Keep in mind that the number of uninsured (between 35-50 million) either stayed the same or went up with the ACA.
I would be thrilled to have that plan under the (un) ACA. The ACA got millions of people insured who can afford it via subsidies while making millions of others (me included) functionally uninsured which at best, amounts to catastrophic insurance at costs that are bankrupting people.
One reason the ACA was supposed to save $ was by stopping people without insurance from using the ER as their first line medical care, but I'm not aware of any data that has shown the net effect to have been a benefit to states. Have not looked into that one.
There is no plan where you can force insurers to provide care to the uninsurable without a public mandate. What is bankrupting the ACA is the fact that it is a "tax" with no enforcement teeth against those who choose to break the law by going without coverage. If we treated insurance as a real tax, and treated those without insurance as tax evaders, everybody would participate and insurers in exchanges would be solvent.
Moreover, people who think that the ACA would reduce costs by reducing needless ER visits have no clue how healthcare is spent in America. ED costs represent 2-5% of total healthcare spending depending on definitions. Only 10-15% of ED visits are wasted using the prudent layperson standards. So, we are going to make a dent in this by eliminating at best 1% of healthcare cost?
I agree and if it were up to me, drug industry advertising to the public would be banned outright. Where Trump differs is his direct information pipeline to the masses. He can turn the tables and use weaponized narrative to our benefit. It's easy to vilify big pharma because they make unbalanced decisions based on greed.
2017 needs to become the year that "country first" becomes the rallying cry.
Why do you want to ban big Pharma's direct to consumer advertising? Better yet, are there any other private industries that you want to regulate? #PickingWinnersandLosers
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.