They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

[Boomchild]

[JBlake]

Looks like it's getting close for Susan Rice to be going down. And when it happens, I'm sure she'll be sobbing uncontrollably and saying "Can't we all just get along". That's the point when she realizes what she's done while a part of the Obama administration was illegal, wrong, criminal and all those who she worked with and for ain't and can't bail her out.

[Boomchild]

[Boomchild]

[verslibre]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/05/steve-bannon-reportedly-removed-from-national-security-council-in-reorganization.html

[Monker]

Asked by The New York Times, Trump said, “Do I think? Yes, I think.”

Trump did not present any evidence to support that claim.

“I think it’s going to be the biggest story,” Trump said. “It’s such an important story for our country and the world. It is one of the big stories of our time.”

Yep...the biggest story of our time is that Donald Judas Trump 'thinks'. There is no evidence that he thinks, and a lot of crap that seems to show that he doesn't think at all...and even he can't offer any evidence that he thinks.

[verslibre]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/05/steve-bannon-reportedly-removed-from-national-security-council-in-reorganization.html

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/04/05/pence-bossert-and-bannon-werent-demoted-both-will-continue-to-play-important-policy-roles/

LOL! Look at the source.^

[Monker]

Asked by The New York Times, Trump said, “Do I think? Yes, I think.”

Trump did not present any evidence to support that claim.

“I think it’s going to be the biggest story,” Trump said. “It’s such an important story for our country and the world. It is one of the big stories of our time.”

Yep...the biggest story of our time is that Donald Judas Trump 'thinks'. There is no evidence that he thinks, and a lot of crap that seems to show that he doesn't think at all...and even he can't offer any evidence that he thinks.

Ya, just like Obama tapped me.........oops.

EXACTLY. Trump doesn't think and says that Obama tapped his wires at Trump Tower just prior to the election. That was a lie...and he didn't think about how serious it was to accuse Obama of a felony.

[Monker]

Sure Verussy. You used NBC. Same,same. Would it be better if I put ?

It doesn't make any difference. Trump is the problem, not Bannon. Right now, the US has no foreign policy to speak of...and that fault is Donald Judas Trump's for his failure to be an effective leader.

[verslibre]

"Spot on"? What are you now, a Brit? Trevor Rabin's more American than you.

[verslibre]

Cha. Ching.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-travel-expenses-10-weeks-us-taxpayer-fifth-barack-obama-eight-years-mar-a-lago-us-a7670541.html

Donald Trump’s trips to his luxury Florida resort have already cost the US taxpayer at least $24 million (£19.2 million) - roughly as much as Barack Obama spent on travel in the first two years of his presidency.

Mr Trump has spent seven weekends at Mar-a-Lago since taking office ten weeks ago. It is estimated that each of these trips costs at least $3 million (£2.4 million), covering the President’s extensive security detail.

In total, Mr Obama's travel bill over the eight years of his presidency came to $97 million (£78 million) - an average of $12.1 million (£9.7 million) a year.

[Boomchild]

BOOM ! Nice to have a man in charge.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-launches ... 15056.html

Explain to me again what U.S. interests are in Syria? How are we so sure the chemical attacks were perpetrated by Assad and not someone else?

[Monker]

BOOM ! Nice to have a man in charge.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-launches ... 15056.html

Explain to me again what U.S. interests are in Syria? How are we so sure the chemical attacks were perpetrated by Assad and not someone else?

The NSA overheard incidental communication between people on the Trump team colluding with Assad on how to distract the American people away from all of the investigations. A Sarin attack, followed by a US misslie strike was the best option

[Monker]

BOOM ! Nice to have a man in charge.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-launches ... 15056.html

Yeah, he has to compensate for his small hands somehow.

[Monker]

This is untrue Email spam. If you look, it uses data from 2012. It is spam that was proven wrong FOUR YEARS AGO.

Basically, they count jobs in government as unemployment, and they use a broad definition of "welfare" to include children and such. If you fact check this, it is not just untrue, but extremely untrue. Politifact rated it "pants on fire".

The numbers of eight years of Obama are coming in. Here are some amazing stats: Make sure you read to the bottom. An eye opener!
1. These 10 States now have more people on welfare than they do employed!
· California
· New Mexico
· Mississippi
· Alabama
· Illinois
· Kentucky
· Ohio
· New York
· Maine, and
· South Carolina
2. Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2012, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. Household below the poverty line received $168.00 a day in government support.
What's the problem with that much support?
Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000, which averages out to $137.13 a day.
To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for 40 hour week, while the average job pays $24.00 an hour.
3. Check the last set of statistics!!
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is: A real-life business not a government job.
Here are the percentages:
38% T. Roosevelt
40% Taft
52% Wilson
49% Harding
48% Coolidge
42% Hoover
50% F. D. Roosevelt
50% Truman
57% Eisenhower
30% Kennedy
47% Johnson
53% Nixon
42% Ford
32% Carter
56% Reagan
51% GH Bush
39% Clinton
55% GW Bush
8% Obama
This helps explain the bias, if not the incompetence, of the last administration: ONLY 8% of them have
ever worked in private business!
That's right! Only eight percent - the least, by far of the last 19 presidents! And these people tried to tell our corporations how to run their businesses?
How could Obama, president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one?
Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And, when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government, and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers."

[The_Noble_Cause]

BOOM ! Nice to have a man in charge.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-launches ... 15056.html

Explain to me again what U.S. interests are in Syria? How are we so sure the chemical attacks were perpetrated by Assad and not someone else?

The NSA overheard incidental communication between people on the Trump team colluding with Assad on how to distract the American people away from all of the investigations. A Sarin attack, followed by a US misslie strike was the best option

Sadly, while you may be joking, many Democrats have suggested this.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Those guys SUCKED. They were kicked out of the debates because they polled HORRIBLY. Regardless of their philosophy, they would have lost the nomination.

Right. Just like the DNC cheated Bernie because he "sucked". Or Nader was frozen out because he "sucked."
And even when lesser candidates polled extremely well, (like Ron Paul), there were still efforts to kick them out of the debates or to disguise the polling results.
Also, Hillary asked Gravel to be kicked out because he kept calling her out like here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npzN3dZR6JM&t=18s

It didn't "suck." It was badass. It was a baller move. And Gravel was 100% correct.

He wanted the 60 votes to get the super majority. That is what all of this was about. When it was obvious that they were not going to get it before the end of the year, they took the simple majority....and the consequences of Republicans talking about getting it shoved down their throats, which was BULLSHIT. There was NO CHANCE of Republican votes because of the obstruction deal that the Republicans had made with each other.

So why did Obama start with a shitty Romneycare healthcare plan that was already to the right? The answer is because that's what his HMO donors wanted. There was NEVER going to be any support for public option. Stop hiding behind the GOP. The Dems held all the cards.

It was voted out in congress at some point during the debates in attempts to compromise with Republicans. That IS what happened.

You keep hiding behind Republicans and Congress. From the NYTimes in 2009:

"Mr. Obama has said he wants a public plan, but he has not always insisted on it, and the administration has sent mixed signals about how important it is."

It's the President's job to rally support to his ideas. On the public option, like card check and NAFTA, Obama folded.

You're wrong. Trump PROMISED repeal/replace of ObamaCare as one of his first priorities.

I don't know any Trump voters who voted for him genuinely expecting government-provided healthcare. Ask around.

Even YOU said a few weeks ago that congress would get in line because of Trump...

On healthcare, I could not give two shits. If I said this, quote me. I have always had employer-provided healthcare. Obamacare covers small businesses owners and shiftless bums (like you).

So, even YOU at one pointed expected Health Care to pass. His voters EXPECT this to happen.

Again, quote me or fuck off. I am one of Trump's voters, so is FF and KC. None of us want government-provided healthcare. That is your warped elitist idea of what Trump working-class voters expect.

So, you are all into conspiracy theories, just like the rest of the Trump fans on this forum.

What, exactly, did I mention that is a conspiracy theory?...

-The fact that Crowstrike walked back the Russia narrative?
- The fact that the FBI did not examine the allegedly Russian-hacked servers?
-The fact that Hillary had a PAC dedicated to online trolls making social media comments?

Links to all provided below.

http://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rew ... 81411.html
http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... ers-report
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ebook.html

The only conspiracy theory I have read on this forum is from YOU claiming that Trump will create another 9/11 and that Hillary had permission to use a private server.

Funny, I usually write my posts before I even watch anything on the news. Maybe they are repeating what I say.

Riiight.
So you came up with the DNC talking point that "Hillary had permission to use a private server" all on your own? Or that Russia "hacked the election."
Everything you post reads like a ticker tape straight out of Rachel Maddow's asshole.

No, it's not. It's "I don't give a damn".

So you care about someone hacking Podesta's private server but not the FDIC? The FDIC is actually part of the US government.

No, because it is one sided propaganda. Let's take Brazille. She had an interview where she basically said, "You have only seen one half of the story. There is this other stack of Emails over here that nobody has seen...and I can't comment on them due to privacy."

Brazille also had countless interviews where she denied feeding questions to the Hillary team and has now since come out and apologized for it. CNN thought it serious enough to fire her over it.

So, tell me, how do you know that Brazille did not have the exact same conversations with people working with Bernie Sanders?

Then Donna can release those emails.
Her emails to Hillary were entitled “From time to time I get the questions in advance..”
In the body of the emails, she wrote about one question "here's one that worries me about HRC."
Boy, that sounds legit.

So, both sides knew what to expect and would have full and complete answers to the questions making it a more informative debate...which was HER JOB?

Her job as a CNN commentator was to secretly give questions out to presidential candidates in advance?
Wouldn't CNN confirm this instead of, say, firing her ass? You truly have no shame.

So, I ignore it, and don't even comment on it. Assange is a criminal and should be treated like one.

Right. I guess the NYTimes were criminals for printing the Pentagon Papers also? Was Maddow a criminal for reading Trump’s tax return?

Trump is more paranoid that Nixon was.

Nixon was taken down because of "illegal" leaks like the Pentagon Papers. Meanwhile, you just said Wikileaks is a criminal enterprise. Did you ever attack Wikileaks when it was exposing the crimes of the Bush administration? You have no ideological consistency. You are just a whore for the Queen.

[Memorex]

In honor of Steve Perry performing with Journey tonight, Donald Trump is going to let Hillary sit at his oval office desk. This time, her feet won't accidentally kick Monica in the head.

[Boomchild]

Everything you post reads like a ticker tape straight out of Rachel Maddow's asshole.

Now that's a good one.

[verslibre]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/27/the-reclusive-hedge-fund-tycoon-behind-the-trump-presidency

[Monker]

[/quote]
Monker wrote:
Those guys SUCKED. They were kicked out of the debates because they polled HORRIBLY. Regardless of their philosophy, they would have lost the nomination.


Right. Just like the DNC cheated Bernie because he "sucked". Or Nader was frozen out because he "sucked." [/quote]

If you want to argue that the rules for allowing people into the debate should be changed, fine...I agree with you. But, stating the plight of recent marginal candidates is not going to get very far with me.

So why did Obama start with a shitty Romneycare healthcare plan that was already to the right?

...blah, blah, blah, he was trying to get 60 votes and not settle for 51...blah, blah, blah.

Monker wrote:
You're wrong. Trump PROMISED repeal/replace of ObamaCare as one of his first priorities.

I don't know any Trump voters who voted for him genuinely expecting government-provided healthcare. Ask around.

REPEAL and replace.

[/quote]
Monker wrote:
Even YOU said a few weeks ago that congress would get in line because of Trump...

On healthcare, I could not give two shits. If I said this, quote me.[/quote]

I'll find it.

I have always had employer-provided healthcare. Obamacare covers small businesses owners and shiftless bums (like you).

The only time I have not been on an employee plan was 2009 - 2012 when I was an independent contractor and paying for my own plan.

I am one of Trump's voters, so is FF and KC. None of us want government-provided healthcare. That is your warped elitist idea of what Trump working-class voters expect.

Again, REPEAL and replace. If you go back and read the posts, KC and FF have been counting the days to when ObamaCare would end. Will, they WERE...not so much any longer since their is no end in sight.

Monker wrote:
So, you are all into conspiracy theories, just like the rest of the Trump fans on this forum.

What, exactly, did I mention that is a conspiracy theory?...

-The fact that Crowstrike walked back the Russia narrative?
- The fact that the FBI did not examine the allegedly Russian-hacked servers?
-The fact that Hillary had a PAC dedicated to online trolls making social media comments?

Links to all provided below.

http://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rew ... 81411.html
http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... ers-report
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ebook.html

The only conspiracy theory I have read on this forum is from YOU claiming that Trump will create another 9/11 and that Hillary had permission to use a private server.

This has nothing to do with Trump and his team and their assosiation with Russia, and the NSA hearing them talking to each other on the phone. THAT is what is being investigated. You are off on this wild chase of distraction because that is where Trump wants you to be...thinking any of this discredits what the FBI and congress are doing. What you posted is only a FRACTION of what is being investigated, and is NOT what started the investigations in the first place.


Monker wrote:
Funny, I usually write my posts before I even watch anything on the news. Maybe they are repeating what I say.

Riiight.
So you came up with the DNC talking point that "Hillary had permission to use a private server"

it's funny how YOU keep bringing this up...I've hardly talked about it at all.

all on your own?

YES. I saw it in some string of online Emails. I said it BEFORE it was a "talking point"...but, since I can't find the link where I saw these, I haven't mentioned it since. YOU are the one who keeps bringing it up. I can't prove it so I dropped. What else do you want?

Or that Russia "hacked the election."

This has nothing to do with Democrats but the entirety of our intelligence community saying that it happened. If you want to argue against it, you are arguing against the: FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security...and on and on.

So you care about someone hacking Podesta's private server but not the FDIC? The FDIC is actually part of the US government.

I have said NOTHING about Podesta. Quit making things up.

Brazille also had countless interviews where she denied feeding questions to the Hillary team and has now since come out and apologized for it. CNN thought it serious enough to fire her over it.

Don't care.

Then Donna can release those emails.
Her emails to Hillary were entitled “From time to time I get the questions in advance..”
In the body of the emails, she wrote about one question "here's one that worries me about HRC."
Boy, that sounds legit.

My point is that WikiLeaks has a one-sided agenda against Clinton. So, I simply do not care what they say...everything they say is from that one sided agenda.

Right. I guess the NYTimes were criminals for printing the Pentagon Papers also? Was Maddow a criminal for reading Trump’s tax return?

Assange colludes with the Soviets to post the Emails they hacked. THAT is epionage. Assange posted classified documents and video to undermine W and his war in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is debately espionage depending on if it can be proven he wanted to harm the US.

Monker wrote:
Trump is more paranoid that Nixon was.

Nixon was taken down because of "illegal" leaks like the Pentagon Papers. Meanwhile, you just said Wikileaks is a criminal enterprise.

This has nothing to do with either Trump or Nixon being paranoid.

Did you ever attack Wikileaks when it was exposing the crimes of the Bush administration? You have no ideological consistency. You are just a whore for the Queen.

And, you ask a question that you don't know the answer to and then judge me on what you believe is the answer.

I treated WikiLeaks under W the same as I did with Obama, and now Trump, I ignored them. The only time I have commented directly on WikiLeaks is in this string of posts. Years ago when someone posted the video of a US gunship shooting reporters, which I said I would never judge our military personel in A warzone. The people who do judge them should volunteer for combat duty in Iraq and see how they react to being surrounded by people who constantly want to kill them. And, I said similar things about Bergdahl. The ONLY people who I feel should critique these situations are the soldiers they served with. And, yes, I know both situations had that critique...and that's fair. I will neither support nor attack that critique...it is not my place to do so.

WikiLeaks doesn't deserve the attention and credibility you give it.

[The_Noble_Cause]

If you want to argue that the rules for allowing people into the debate should be changed, fine...I agree with you. But, stating the plight of recent marginal candidates is not going to get very far with me.

Those rules did not even exist back when the debates were sponsored by League of Women Voters. You make it sound like the rules are enshrined in the Constitution. Starting in 1987, the debates have experienced a corporate takeover, just like the two parties.

...blah, blah, blah, he was trying to get 60 votes and not settle for 51...blah, blah, blah.

And his excuse for not fighting for card check and revising NAFTA? Where was his dedication to such lofty bipartisanship when he started legislating by executive order?

REPEAL and replace.

Voting Republican expecting government-provided healthcare is like voting Democrat and expecting them to do away with NAACP and the Post Office. Get real.

The only time I have not been on an employee plan was 2009 - 2012 when I was an independent contractor and paying for my own plan.

Good. I’m glad. Hope you go bankrupt. As you adjust your stone pillow and pull the newspaper over your pre-hypothermic corpse, just remember that Bernie wanted single payer.

This has nothing to do with Trump and his team and their assosiation with Russia, and the NSA hearing them talking to each other on the phone. THAT is what is being investigated. You are off on this wild chase of distraction because that is where Trump wants you to be...thinking any of this discredits what the FBI and congress are doing. What you posted is only a FRACTION of what is being investigated, and is NOT what started the investigations in the first place.

The entire "Russia hacked our democracy" myth is predicated on the DNC and Podesta server being hacked by Russia. The DNC-contracted tech firm has walked those accusations back and the FBI has not independently examined either server. Chuck Schumer recently admitted that he finally stopped using a flip phone. These are the people you are looking to for expert cyber analysis?

it's funny how YOU keep bringing this up...I've hardly talked about it at all.

Because you are embarrassed. It is one of many examples proving that you are constantly wrong and constantly lying for partisan aims.

This has nothing to do with Democrats but the entirety of our intelligence community saying that it happened. If you want to argue against it, you are arguing against the: FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security...and on and on.

Too funny. You do realize that Colin Powell also stated that “all 17 intelligence agencies” were in agreement about Iraqi WMDS, right? You mention the "entirety of the intel community", but did all of these agencies look at the hacked servers? NO. So the consensus is based upon the work of one lousy DNC-paid tech firm. The National Intelligence Council Report on Russian election interference (link below) was total crap. It blamed Russia Today for TV programming that has been off the air for years. The only thing missing were references to aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds, and yellow cake.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

I have said NOTHING about Podesta. Quit making things up.

Again, the entire Russia narrative (which you mention non-stop) is based on the claim that two servers were hacked: Podesta’s and the DNC’s.

My point is that WikiLeaks has a one-sided agenda against Clinton. So, I simply do not care what they say...everything they say is from that one sided agenda.

How do emails have an agenda? Wiki can only leak what they are given. In many cases, the batches included a thousand emails at a time. If Wiki was trying to be selective, they weren't very good at it.

Assange colludes with the Soviets to post the Emails they hacked. THAT is epionage.

No proof of the Soviet-Wikileaks connection. Secondly, if Trump’s tax return was leaked to Maddow by Russians, should she not read it? Hypocrite.

WikiLeaks doesn't deserve the attention and credibility you give it.

You don't read it, so how would you know? I am always in favor of truth and transparency.

[Boomchild]

From Wikileaks:

Important, rare caveat removed from BBC article on Syria chemical attack http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39508868
See News Sniffer https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/1357208/diff/6/7

[Boomchild]

I have trouble with Trump's recent decision to bomb Syria. You have his SOS saying "in the administration's mind" there is no doubt Assad was behind the chemical attack. He went on to say that they are working on a "coalition for regime change in Syria". We all know how these regime changes in the Middle East go. So what do we have here? Trump was critical of Obama taking military action in Syria without Congressional approval. Trump was critical of the U.S. even being involved the conflict in Syria. At least Assad was fighting ISIS which I thought was supposed to be our focus. Trump said that his administration was not going to be about regime changes and nation building. Funny, it seems that is what starting to happen here.

[Boomchild]

More form Wikileaks concerning Trump recent actions on Syria.

« Dmitry Medvedev statement on U.S. missile strike against Syria has been censored by U.S. media (but was printed in full by most U.K. press) » http://bit.ly/2nutPNW

[Monker]

So, you are essentially saying that Russia should dictate our response to ISIS. And, that Russia should dictate what our media covers and doesn't.

Kinda confirms some things.

In the 1980's, Republicans would have been up in arms about this. Nowadays it seems they are pro-Russia and pro-Putin, Seems the "evil empire" is actually quite a good thing to today's Republicans and Trump supporters.

Personally, I think it's a whole lot of nothing. Why bomb an airport and not take out the runways? Whatever...I don't think we are going to war in Syria. It seems this was more of a message to the critics in the US than it was to Asad. They may as well of bombed a pharmacy.

More form Wikileaks concerning Trump recent actions on Syria.

« Dmitry Medvedev statement on U.S. missile strike against Syria has been censored by U.S. media (but was printed in full by most U.K. press) » http://bit.ly/2nutPNW

[tj]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/top-obama-administration-officials-admit-152158585.html#comments

Sort of like the deal to keep the Iranians from getting a nuclear bomb will fail if it is allowed to stand. Obama's team and supporters live in a fantasy world where evil people can be trusted and are just evil because of something we did (or didn't do) to them. If only we would give them what they want and be nicer, they would do what is good. It's great in fairy tales. In real life, not so much.

[tj]

Posted on 4/10/2017, 4:42:49 PM by Hojczyk

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney will send a letter this week ordering federal agencies to prepare for massive cuts, according to a report from Axios.

As part of Donald Trump’s plan to streamline federal government, Mulvaney will demand that federal agencies significantly reduce their costs and increase efficiency. The reorganization will likely involve selling assets, laying off employees, and the cancellation of programs deemed unnecessary.

The letter will fall in line with Trump’s executive order from March 13th, which dictates Mulvaney “propose a plan to reorganize governmental functions and eliminate unnecessary agencies (as defined in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code), components of agencies, and agency programs.”

In the new administration’s first White House budget, Trump ordered record cuts for a number of federal agencies, including a 31 percent cut to the Environmental Protection Agency, a 28 percent cut to the State Department, and a 17.9 percent cut to the Department of Health and Human Services. It also proposed eliminating funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as well as the endowments for the Arts and the Humanities.

Congress will throw a fit over this. The reason budget deficits continue to grow unabated is because every government employee is a voter in someone's district. Every office closed is in someone's district. Every dollar saved is being spent in someone's district.

Individually, it's not a big deal. But if you don't support me in keeping the dollars in my district, I won't support you in keeping the dollars in yours.

The only way that this works is a process similar to the Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC) where a commission makes recommendations for closure/cuts, and congress then can either vote to accept or decline them. No changes to the list. It takes some of the pressure off.

[Monker]

Congress will throw a fit over this.

Nah, they'll just take the PROPOSED budget, throw it in the trash, and start over...A President's proposed budget is ALWAYS DOA to congress.

The only way that this works is a process similar to the Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC) where a commission makes recommendations for closure/cuts, and congress then can either vote to accept or decline them. No changes to the list. It takes some of the pressure off.

Quit believing everything you read. This is pure propaganda. Trump isn't a dictator, yet, and can't force congress to accept his budget.

[Boomchild]