Trumps Press conference, January 11 2017

a reply to: Riffrafter

But according to WIkileaks - who has never lied or given false info in over 10 years - they did *not* get them from the Russians or any other "state party".

So what? I don't care of Assange got it from a carrier Pidgeon, according to our intel, Putin ordered the hack and approved the distribution, then set up "troll farms" to push the emails and manufacture fake news.

At Trump's last news conference, HE called on Russia to find Hillary's emails. So, it's not like he didn't know Russia was being implicated in the WikiLeaks distribution of the DNC emails!

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: Grambler

Baaahahaha.. And all of you sheep are eating it up hook line and sinker. Meanwhile Ellison has already brokered a deal in secret with the Russian government for settling the dispute of oil reserves under the artic ice cap that no one legally owns.

In the background, Trump hires people who claim climate change is bad and enables drill baby drill. Trump gets voted out after 4 years, and his gang of cronies make billions on new oil reserves.

Meanwhile back at the ranch... Mixing of business and political interests embraced by Trump and his supporters only further widens the gap between the 1% and the rest of us. Only change we see during his tenure will be laws put in place to allow Corporations to make larger profits with no oversight. Pumping jobs wherever they can to make a larger profit.

Hmmm.. Maybe I'm a psychic.

Yep, i am a gullible fool. I mean, everything you wrote here is so self evident, that the Intelligence Community decided not to report on this secret deal, and instead spread pee stories!!!

a reply to: Jonjonj

The Russians could have leaked the information, and not even known(AKA, they got "hacked"), after hacking the USA, and most of Russia not knowing that either.

Also the "Wikileaks never lies" idea is a little drastic. You miss the fallacy in assuming they're not lying saying it wasn't Russia, while trying to unbiasly protect a source. AKA, it's not like they said who it WAS, you cannot eliminate Russia as a member of evidence simply because they said it wasn't. For example, it could be a RUSSIAN, that is not "RUSSIA" as that would imply Official Public Government, etc. Then there is motive to lie for Russia, and keep the source 'anonymous'. If the point of a source was to be 'anonymous', I agree asking the question "Was it the Russians?" is blatantly moronic, but then using the answer as real evidence, is equally stupid, so you equally do not understand how this really works.

Here is another example: I walk in on a room of 3 little kids and an older one, who decides he will not rat out his 3 younger buddies that clearly caused a disastrous mess in the room. I say: "Was it Timmy?" He says "No.", I say: "Was it Billy?" He says No again, then while I ask if it was Freddy, again, "No.". He decides to keep the perpetrator anonymous. You understand? If I asked him only "Was it Timmy?" Telling me "No." is rather shallow evidence for the circumstances and doesn't get you any farther than literally eliminating ALL suspects for an anonymous source.

My main qualm with the "Russia didn't do it" arguments are based on semantics, while the extremely small 'physical' evidence they do have suggests: Russia.(I guess actually, it would be 'virtual' evidence.)

To pull my own personal Trump moment though, I am a hacker, and know a lot about these hackers and computers. I'm very knowledgeable. Any idiot like me that has ever illegally downloaded a movie before, knows you can reroute a proxy of information and appear to be in ANY location in the world. This is the same data-type information they're using to 'prove' it was Russia! So on all accounts it's absurd to be so definitively absolute in any side.

a reply to: windword

The same Intel that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that you and your kind went nuts over when the truth came out Bush was wrong or a liar?


lol


BTW, I can't stand the BUSHES! I will hold our current POTUS and future ones to the same standards and morality that I believe JFK was actually that last president we had in this country that tried to tell the people the truth!

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: UKTruth

I actually do think it's slightly unreasonable. Russia is already the largest country in the world by almost twofold. And they were actually doing quite well economically before the Crimean annexation. Sadly, the way I see it there are only two solutions to the Russian issue. The first is to continue the course we've been taking. Keep sanctioning them until their economy is ruins and the people of Russia overthrow Putin. Or we take the route Trump seems to be going down and appease them. Which will eventually lead to the Chamberlain/Hitler comparison. As it stands right now Russian/US relations cannot normalize as long as Putin is in charge.

I think that is just too simplistic as it is based on the premise that the USA and Russia are ordained to be enemies.
The people of Russia and the people of the USA have no valid reason to hate each other. Hate is fostered by Govts. If one can accept a situation where there needs to be no 'winner' as long as both parties benefit over their current situation and do not hurt the people of other countries in the process, then there is no need to conjure up images of Hitler and Chamberlain.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Brilliant press conference by Trump, but expect the media and their obsequious followers to focus on tiny out of context tidbits, as lying by omission seems to be the going rate.

really?....he brought out his OWN attorney who he PAYS to do his legal work, and you think that was an unbiased examination of his conflicts of interests about his business?......or, do you think he was brilliant about telling the entire world he just doesn't give a s**t about his family making lots of money off of his presidency? dictators and authoritarian leaders are usually "brilliant" communicators, that doesn't make them ethical leaders.

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: windword

The same Intel that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that you and your kind went nuts over when the truth came out Bush was wrong or a liar?


lol


BTW, I can't stand the BUSHES! I will hold our current POTUS and future ones to the same standards and morality that I believe JFK was actually that last president we had in this country that tried to tell the people the truth!

The argument seems to be that the people were different therefore the agency is different, therefore we should trust them again. It's an odd argument to say the least, given the US intelligence agencies have driven agendas and lied to the public for decades.

a reply to: jimmyx

Okay, so anyone with businesses need to fire sale them to do politics.

Anyone with money need not apply to politics.

Only career politicians can do politics (despite the fact they get rich in the process).

Did I miss anything here?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Riffrafter

The Russian DID hack the DNC and then distributed that info through WikiLeaks in order to help Donald Trump's campaign.

Flat out wrong and BS!!

Wikileaks did NOT receive their info from the Russians.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Riffrafter

But according to WIkileaks - who has never lied or given false info in over 10 years - they did *not* get them from the Russians or any other "state party".

So what? I don't care of Assange got it from a carrier Pidgeon, according to our intel, Putin ordered the hack and approved the distribution, then set up "troll farms" to push the emails and manufacture fake news.

At Trump's last news conference, HE called on Russia to find Hillary's emails. So, it's not like he didn't know Russia was being implicated in the WikiLeaks distribution of the DNC emails!

Right, our same intelligence that leaked to the press that trump had hookers pee on a bed Obama once slept on. The same intelligence that said Iraq had WMD's. We should take their word over Wikileaks, that has a record of not once lying about their info.

As for Trump telling Russia to hack, I could tell you that it was a joke, but I know you won't buy that so lets dive in.

Of course he knew Russia was being accused, what does that prove?

So whats the official version that you are going with. Russia was helping Trump, he was meeting with them, but instead of asking them to hack Hillary at a meeting or in proivate, he announces it over a live press conference. HAHAHA!

And I assume if you think this comment was not just a joke or taken out of context, then you also think Obama was actually telling illegals to vote.

he young woman said she calls “undocumented dreamers” citizens, “because they contribute to this country.” However, she said they are fearful of voting, afraid they will be caught.

“If I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?”

“Not true,” Obama said. “The reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself, and there is not a situation where the voting rules are transferred over and people start investigating.”

dennismichaellynch.com...

Funny, I don't remember you getting outraged over this blatant law breaking and voter fraud.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Brilliant press conference by Trump, but expect the media and their obsequious followers to focus on tiny out of context tidbits, as lying by omission seems to be the going rate.

really?....he brought out his OWN attorney who he PAYS to do his legal work, and you think that was an unbiased examination of his conflicts of interests about his business?......or, do you think he was brilliant about telling the entire world he just doesn't give a s**t about his family making lots of money off of his presidency? dictators and authoritarian leaders are usually "brilliant" communicators, that doesn't make them ethical leaders.

Generally speaking a person would hire an attorney if he or she wants them to do some work for them. Do you think someone else should have paid for the attorneys?

The legal firm has reviewed the law, including the rules on emoluments and put a mode in place that goes way beyond what Trump is required to do. Sounds like you are just a bit upset that one of the left's big attack lines has just been nullified.

Sorry but there is going to be no impeachment on this issue.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Riffrafter

If I was a betting man, Snowden. His continued "freedom" is dependent on Russian hospitality. Plus, I'm sure Snowden and Assange have at the very least a working relationship.

Hmmm....not a bad guess amigo. Well done!

But at this point we have no idea who gave the info to WIkileaks other than it was NOT the Russians or any other "state party".

Very interesting stuff though....has me wondering a lot as I'm sure many others are...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Riffrafter

But according to WIkileaks - who has never lied or given false info in over 10 years - they did *not* get them from the Russians or any other "state party".

So what? I don't care of Assange got it from a carrier Pidgeon, according to our intel, Putin ordered the hack and approved the distribution, then set up "troll farms" to push the emails and manufacture fake news.

At Trump's last news conference, HE called on Russia to find Hillary's emails. So, it's not like he didn't know Russia was being implicated in the WikiLeaks distribution of the DNC emails!

So, what your point?

If it's true, what difference does it make?

Or are you the "Shoot the messenger" type?

What *matters* is that the info is true. Everything else is secondary and/or background noise.

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Riffrafter

The Russian DID hack the DNC and then distributed that info through WikiLeaks in order to help Donald Trump's campaign.

Flat out wrong and BS!!

Wikileaks did NOT * receive their info from the Russians.

Directly.* Allegedly.

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

You miss the fallacy in assuming they're not lying saying it wasn't Russia, while trying to unbiasly protect a source. AKA, it's not like they said who it WAS, you cannot eliminate Russia as a member of evidence simply because they said it wasn't.

Actually I don't miss anything, and as for unbiasEDly protecting a source, I am not a journalist.

If the point of a source was to be 'anonymous', I agree asking the question "Was it the Russians?" is blatantly moronic, but then using the answer as real evidence, is equally stupid, so you equally do not understand how this really works.

None of this makes sense, at all, please explain.

My main qualm with the "Russia didn't do it" arguments are based on semantics, while the extremely small 'physical' evidence they do have suggests: Russia.(I guess actually, it would be 'virtual' evidence.)

Seriously...what?

To pull my own personal Trump moment though, I am a hacker, and know a lot about these hackers and computers. I'm very knowledgeable. Any idiot like me that has ever illegally downloaded a movie before, knows you can reroute a proxy of information and appear to be in ANY location in the world. This is the same data-type information they're using to 'prove' it was Russia! So on all accounts it's absurd to be so definitively absolute in any side.

Wow...erm...ok.

Hacker, the point of this whole story is what? I just want to hear the Trump conference...

a reply to: seeker1963

The same Intel that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that you and your kind went nuts over when the truth came out Bush was wrong or a liar?

Actually, it was the intel community who argued against weapons of mass destruction, and Valerie Plame paid the price. History shows that it was the Bush administration that lied to and misrepresented the intel to Congress and the American people, not the intelligence community.
George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD “intelligence” was a lie

The liberals have worked themselves into hysterics today

I thought calling out the BS msn was one of the few things the left and right had in common. Their arguments on here today are so erratic and misplaced i dont even think they know what they're supposed to be defending .

Trump mopped the floor with one of the worst news sites ever to exist, What exactly is the problem???

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: UKTruth

I actually do think it's slightly unreasonable. Russia is already the largest country in the world by almost twofold. And they were actually doing quite well economically before the Crimean annexation. Sadly, the way I see it there are only two solutions to the Russian issue. The first is to continue the course we've been taking. Keep sanctioning them until their economy is ruins and the people of Russia overthrow Putin. Or we take the route Trump seems to be going down and appease them. Which will eventually lead to the Chamberlain/Hitler comparison. As it stands right now Russian/US relations cannot normalize as long as Putin is in charge.

I think that is just too simplistic as it is based on the premise that the USA and Russia are ordained to be enemies.
The people of Russia and the people of the USA have no valid reason to hate each other. Hate is fostered by Govts. If one can accept a situation where there needs to be no 'winner' as long as both parties benefit over their current situation and do not hurt the people of other countries in the process, then there is no need to conjure up images of Hitler and Chamberlain.

you don't seem to have done any research on what Putin has done to his own people, and his own country, or, you trust trump 100% to be telling you the truth....you would have been just the type of investor that trump wanted for his 4 business projects that went bankrupt, or be the student who heard trump's promise of wealth, if only the student would spend thousands of dollars upfront to attend his trump "university", which was proven phony, and convicted of fraud in a court of law.

a reply to: windword

History shows that it was the Bush administration that lied to and misrepresented the intel to Congress and the American people, not the intelligence community.

Commander in chief blatantly lies, secret services rebel, ....hold on, did that actually happen?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: jimmyx

Okay, so anyone with businesses need to fire sale them to do politics.

Anyone with money need not apply to politics.

Only career politicians can do politics (despite the fact they get rich in the process).

Did I miss anything here?

Nope. You pretty much word for word stated the position of CNN analyst Larry Noble, given immediately after the press conference. The panel went through various alternative methods Trump could have taken and Noble dismissed each one as "not being good enough" to the point where we are left believing that no one but a career politician should ever again aspire to the office of President.