The adventures of President Donald Gump

[wisedog 352]

But the question on everyone's lips is what word am I using to describe Trump that keeps getting censored? It really could be any number of things.

Edited March 14, 2018 by wisedog
I decided it wasn't a very good post but I can't delete it. I can't do much about that now. In fact, my entire contribution to this thread might not be very good but I can't do much about that. It just has to stay here annoying people. Like Trump.

[dieter 3,325]

7 hours ago, nutbean said:

I consider myself a moderate as well but sticking to your guns is just not enough. Telling people who disagree with you to F' O" is not enough. I have always said about Tony Abbott  - the one thing I admire about him is there was no subterfuge and little waivering.

Sorry to disagree about Mr Speedo. Before he won office he said there were many things he WOULDN'T DO: example, emaciate the ABC, and while I'm struggling to recall the nighmarish goulash of bulldust that came from his vile gob, I know there were other things he reneged on. I recall Kerrie O'Brien nailing him  about 'core promises' and things a politician said off the top of his head. 

I'm so glad he's gone.

Trouble is we now have Turnbulldust. I guess it could have been worder, for example Morrison or Dutton or Brandis or Barnaby.

[dieter 3,325]

7 hours ago, Choke said:

Respectfully, Obama did plenty.

Here's a humorous review

 

In particular, the Affordable Care Act was monumental. Worth noting that Americans overwhelmingly support the ACA, but don't like Obamacare. Apparently education is so bad in the states that they don't know it's the same thing. Just the Obama label is enough to turn people against something they like.

 

 

I understand the attraction of someone like Trump, especially given his position as an 'outsider' who can take on the elites. The issue for me is that this I think this is deceptive. He's a political outsider, but he's also a billionaire who's just as conflicted (if not more so) than the Democrats he sought to replace. He's an 'elite' too. Sure, he's a bomb that the electorate threw at a political system that wasn't working and I get how that feel satisfying - but TBH I don't think a bomb was the best solution.

He gets away with so much more than a Democrat President could. I'd ask all Trump supporters, in all honesty, to think about what their reaction would be if:

- Obama appointed his son-in-law to a senior WH advisory role and had him read the President's daily intelligence briefing (because they're too long), only for his temporary clearance to be revokes. 

- Obama said the government should take people's guns away without due process.

- Obama refused to impose sanctions on a foreign power despite congress passing laws to do so with a veto-proof majority.

- Obama played golf every weekend, despite specifically saying he wouldn't have time.

- Obama charged the government millions of dollars to stay at his own resort.

- Obama failed to even nominate enough candidates for open white house and cabinet positions, and most of those he did appoint he either fired or left.

- Obama appointed a woman who destroyed evidence of torture to be head of the CIA (Trump did this this morning).

- Obama said he'd fix healthcare and when he couldn't said "who knew healthcare was so complicated?"

- Obama's lawyer paid off a porn star to keep quiet about an affair he had while his wife was pregnant with his son.

 

That's just off the top of my head. I purposefully have left out the 'Russia stuff' as he calls it, because it's so complex I don't have time to discuss it.

I'd really love for Trump supporters to look at that list and really truly consider what their reaction to those actions would be if it was Obama and not Trump. Especially the guns one. If Obama said what Trump said, there would be talks of revolution from the South.

Just because jobs are up doesn't make all of this ok.

 

As a side note - I am also male and white. I'm not sure why you feel ashamed of it? I don't. I don't feel like I censor myself. I don't feel like I have to modify my behaviour. I don't feel that pressure that my father says he feels to constantly monitor what I say or do. I imagine that would be very uncomfortable and sometimes wonder what thoughts he is having that he cannot voice for fear he will be called racist. If that was the case then I can certainly see the appeal of Trump. But without being able to identify with him or his politics, I look at him with a colder eye and find him sorely wanting both as a human being and as a President.

 

Dear Choke. I abhor everything Trump stands for. However, I have absolutely no regard for Obama either.

If you can be bothered, please listen to a podcast on Radio National, Conversations, with a the Nigerian/African writer Teju Cole.

What he said about Obama is telling.

[dieter 3,325]

1 hour ago, dieter said:

Dear Choke. I abhor everything Trump stands for. However, I have absolutely no regard for Obama either.

If you can be bothered, please listen to a podcast on Radio National, Conversations, with a the Nigerian/African writer Teju Cole.

What he said about Obama is telling.

Also, are you aware that the secretary of the Nobel Peace Prize committee that awarded this bulldust award before Obama even said 'I do' at the inauguration  sincerely regrets their decision. 

[nutbean 8,838]

13 hours ago, dieter said:

Sorry to disagree about Mr Speedo. Before he won office he said there were many things he WOULDN'T DO: example, emaciate the ABC, and while I'm struggling to recall the nighmarish goulash of bulldust that came from his vile gob, I know there were other things he reneged on. I recall Kerrie O'Brien nailing him  about 'core promises' and things a politician said off the top of his head. 

I'm so glad he's gone.

Trouble is we now have Turnbulldust. I guess it could have been worder, for example Morrison or Dutton or Brandis or Barnaby.

I thought he was more transparent than most pollies. I think it was obvious what you were getting before he was elected .All pollies break promises but I think he was certainly more straight in what he said he was going to do. As opposed to Howard and his famous "core and non core promises".

Abbott isn't gone - but I wish he was. 

[wisedog 352]

Abbott always seemed to me like a genuine man. I liked him and was actually very disappointed when Malcom 'born to rule' Turbnull knocked him over. It seemed there was a characterisation of Abbott that was peddled by the press gallery but the real man was someone different. He was just too awkward and old fashioned to know how to counter their tactics.

I think it was very telling to hear Warren Mundine say, and I paraphrase, "The more you got to know him and the more you worked with him, the more you liked him." As for Rudd, he said the opposite.

I think Abbott was confronted by an extraordinarily hostile media who barely even bothered to disguise their loathing for him. His brand of conservatism was anathema to them. However... while he did kick a few goals, he was ultimately a disappointment.

What does he do now? He seems to have no purpose and no friends in the world except Andrew Bolt. Even his former allies in Cormann, Frydenberg and Dutton have turned their backs. He could join Bernadi's Conservatives... perhaps better to go quietly into the night.

He'd actually be a good war time Prime Minister. So when Trump blows everything up, he may be useful.

[nutbean 8,838]

10 hours ago, wisedog said:

Abbott always seemed to me like a genuine man. I liked him and was actually very disappointed when Malcom 'born to rule' Turbnull knocked him over. It seemed there was a characterisation of Abbott that was peddled by the press gallery but the real man was someone different. He was just too awkward and old fashioned to know how to counter their tactics.

I think it was very telling to hear Warren Mundine say, and I paraphrase, "The more you got to know him and the more you worked with him, the more you liked him." As for Rudd, he said the opposite.

I think Abbott was confronted by an extraordinarily hostile media who barely even bothered to disguise their loathing for him. His brand of conservatism was anathema to them. However... while he did kick a few goals, he was ultimately a disappointment.

What does he do now? He seems to have no purpose and no friends in the world except Andrew Bolt. Even his former allies in Cormann, Frydenberg and Dutton have turned their backs. He could join Bernadi's Conservatives... perhaps better to go quietly into the night.

He'd actually be a good war time Prime Minister. So when Trump blows everything up, he may be useful.

I have quite a distaste for Abbott's politics but I always found him fairly transparent and mostly consistent. To me, the measure of a good politician is that you know where he/she stands on issue and how far he/she will compromise to get his agenda legislated - after all  - isn't that why we vote a certain way ? I detest implementing by stealth and flip flopping on issues. 

Whilst not wanting to generalise ( which i am about to do) I find it interesting that the further left or right a members politics are , the more clear it is on where they stand on any given issue. I know with a lot of certainty where the Greens and on the other side, the Bernardi's Hanson's and Abbott's are going to stand on any given issue where i am always less certain of what Turnbull and Shorten stand for.

[wisedog 352]

I understand that. And I was never particularly open about my support for Abbott. It just wasn't worth the number of barroom arguments I would have to endure. I had multiple arguments with my girlfriend over the years who would tell me he made her skin crawl. So we just decided to avoid the topic.

It would be an interesting study to see why so many people arrive at their opinions with such striking consistency - without any kind of manifesto or for that matter any kind of collaboration. The term 'group think' is very much apt. My Dad is from England and he would often retell a quote by someone or other. "If I'm at a dinner party and someone tells me where they stand on fox hunting... I can tell you where they stand on everything!"

But I'm not saying this is only a phenomenon of the Left. I can just as easily see people reading Bolt and allowing their views to be bent in accordance.

 

 

[What 18,810]

On 3/13/2018 at 2:56 PM, Ethan Tremblay said:

Why do you think they want him gone so badly?

Hes making every president since Reagan look utterly worthless.

[dieter 3,325]

2 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Why do you think they want him gone so badly?

Hes making every president since Reagan look utterly worthless.

What do you mean by that? All USA Presidents have been first and foremost warmongers, and, ironically, it was during the dwarf-brained d grade Hollywood extra called Nancy, I meant Ronald, that the whole of street level, lower class, blue collar USA residents were shoved down the schit hole . It sounds like you believe that's where they belong. The Strumpet promised them heaps, he had/has absolutely no idea about how to deliver the dispossessed from their misery - how the hell can a multi millionaire psychopath ever deliver aid to the downtrodden - so, like I say, what exactly do you mean?

[Jara 1,153]

3 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Why do you think they want him gone so badly?

Hes making every president since Reagan look utterly worthless.

They may want him gone because he's an egocentric jerk who's thus far achieved nothing (although I was pleased when he bombed Assad  - pity he didn't get the man himself).

 

See Nutbean's excellent post above: just as many jobs created in the Obama era as in the Trump (if that's what you're referring to). These things happen for all sorts of reasons, most of them not connected to who's in the White House. Not sure what else Trump's done: grabbed a few [censored]? Drained the - ahem - swamp?

 

My god, if you fell for the Reaganite method-acting con, jeez... no wonder you're impressed by Trump.

[dieter 3,325]

16 minutes ago, Jara said:

They may want him gone because he's an egocentric jerk who's thus far achieved nothing (although I was pleased when he bombed Assad  - pity he didn't get the man himself).

 

See Nutbean's excellent post above: just as many jobs created in the Obama era as in the Trump (if that's what you're referring to). These things happen for all sorts of reasons, most of them not connected to who's in the White House. Not sure what else Trump's done: grabbed a few [censored]? Drained the - ahem - swamp?

 

My god, if you fell for the Reaganite method-acting con, jeez... no wonder you're impressed by Trump.

By the way, Jara, Assad DID NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS. IT IS A MSM  LIE. 

Read Seymour Hersch about this. He is not a conspiracy theory manic, rather he is a Pulitzer Prize winning USA journalist who has written about the 2013 and 2017 so-called Chemical weapon attacks: the first was published in the London Review of Books, the second in a German newspaper. Not one USA media source would touch it. Please follow this up. We are being lied to, in the same way we were lied to about Vietnam - the so-called Tonkin incident - and lots of others. Just allow me to mention Saddam Hussein and his Weapons of Mass destruction.... 

[Jara 1,153]

Had a look at it - yeah, you're right - it's debatable, at best. I trust Mr Hersh. I should add that my views on Assad don't just come from the Herald Sun - I do some volunteer work with Syrian refugees - my views are shaped largely by what they tell me. They're not fans, to put it mildly. Homicidal maniac is the general opinion.   

[dieter 3,325]

1 hour ago, Jara said:

Had a look at it - yeah, you're right - it's debatable, at best. I trust Mr Hersh. I should add that my views on Assad don't just come from the Herald Sun - I do some volunteer work with Syrian refugees - my views are shaped largely by what they tell me. They're not fans, to put it mildly. Homicidal maniac is the general opinion.   

Glad you read it. There's also an article published in a German newspaper about the 2017 attacks: Hersh comes to the same conclusion.

The bottom line is I don't trust any information that comes from USA media sources regarding any war the USA is involved in - and they are involved in too many to list, these days mostly by proxy, example, Libya, Syria, Yemen. 

The bottom line, Jara, is we were lied to about Vietnam, Iraq  - both times, do you remember the 'Bayonets in the Humidicribs' hoax?- Libya, the so-called Ukrainian revolution etc etc etc. Obama was no better: he was just as big a liar as the rest of them once he came to power.

As I've mentioned above, I came across an interview on Radio National with the Nigerian/American writer Teju Cole - it's available as a podcast - and what he says about Obama is telling.

[dieter 3,325]

3 hours ago, dieter said:

Glad you read it. There's also an article published in a German newspaper about the 2017 attacks: Hersh comes to the same conclusion.

The bottom line is I don't trust any information that comes from USA media sources regarding any war the USA is involved in - and they are involved in too many to list, these days mostly by proxy, example, Libya, Syria, Yemen. 

The bottom line, Jara, is we were lied to about Vietnam, Iraq  - both times, do you remember the 'Bayonets in the Humidicribs' hoax?- Libya, the so-called Ukrainian revolution etc etc etc. Obama was no better: he was just as big a liar as the rest of them once he came to power.

As I've mentioned above, I came across an interview on Radio National with the Nigerian/American writer Teju Cole - it's available as a podcast - and what he says about Obama is telling.

 

Trump-s-Red-Line.html

[Ethan Tremblay 30,872]

To think this thread is going to continue until at least 2024. @dieter you seem to have a real hatred for Westerners, have you considered moving to Afghanistan or Iraq?

Edited March 21, 2018 by Ethan Tremblay

[dieter 3,325]

4 hours ago, dieter said:

Glad you read it. There's also an article published in a German newspaper about the 2017 attacks: Hersh comes to the same conclusion.

The bottom line is I don't trust any information that comes from USA media sources regarding any war the USA is involved in - and they are involved in too many to list, these days mostly by proxy, example, Libya, Syria, Yemen. 

The bottom line, Jara, is we were lied to about Vietnam, Iraq  - both times, do you remember the 'Bayonets in the Humidicribs' hoax?- Libya, the so-called Ukrainian revolution etc etc etc. Obama was no better: he was just as big a liar as the rest of them once he came to power.

As I've mentioned above, I came across an interview on Radio National with the Nigerian/American writer Teju Cole - it's available as a podcast - and what he says about Obama is telling.

The article about last year's 'chemical weapons' strike was published in Die Welt.

Hersh comes to the same conclusion he came to about the 2013 attack. In other words, it was committed by US armed rebels...

[dieter 3,325]

18 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

To think this thread is going to continue until at least 2024. @dieter you seem to have a real hatred for Westerners, have you considered moving to Afghanistan or Iraq?

What, sweetie, has hating what the USA stands for got to do with hating Westerners?

Edited March 21, 2018 by dieter

[dieter 3,325]

10 minutes ago, dieter said:

What, sweetie, has hating what the USA stands for got to do with hating Westerners?

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I understand that where you come from. It is not a very nice place, sweetie. And it's probably best if we put each other on the ignore list. Good bye.

By the way, your post makes me want to puke. How can an immoral imbecile like Trump suck in so many people? It's way beyond my comprehension.

Edited March 21, 2018 by dieter

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

1 hour ago, dieter said:

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I understand that where you come from. It is not a very nice place, sweetie. And it's probably best if we put each other on the ignore list. Good bye.

By the way, your post makes me want to puke. How can an immoral imbecile like Trump suck in so many people? It's way beyond my comprehension.

Funny you should say that, the Brits worked it out and are currently producing a series. First 3 episodes are out.

https://www.channel4.com/news/data-democracy-and-dirty-tricks-cambridge-analytica-uncovered-investigation-expose

 

Only last week I posted in the fake news thread a report citing an Oxford study that said right wingers share and believe more fake news than left wingers. And now we see why - they were being deliberately fed this crap to win elections by a sophisticated and illegal campaign. It's not that they are worse people or more vulnerable - they were targeted in a very specific way.

 

Oh and today a Fox News commentator quit saying he didn't want to be part of the propaganda machine:

"Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration," wrote Ralph Peters, a Fox News "strategic analyst."

"Over my decade with Fox, I long was proud of the association. Now I am ashamed," he wrote.

"Today, I feel that Fox News is assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law, while fostering corrosive and unjustified paranoia among viewers." 

Source:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomnamako/ralph-peters?utm_term=.bk7QALjAQ#.imG3dwyd3

 

So lets say it's 4 years ago. You're a reasonable conservative. You watch Fox News as your source of factual information. It degenerates into a "propaganda machine" (as quoted by Ralph Peters, above) without you noticing. At the same time your Facebook page subtly starts to contain more and more false and misleading information about political matters. Information specifically designed by Cambridge Analytica to ensure you vote the right the way. This is political advertising but illegally not labelled as such, and therefore bypasses the normal alarm bells that overlay your rationality when you are exposed to political ads.

Now 4 years later, your guy is President and is talking about firing the man investigating his campaign for the very crimes perpetrated against you on your Facebook feed. But you don't care, because Cambridge and Fox have done such a great job reducing your ability to objectively evaluate politics that you believe everything they spew at you. But your guy won. And all you are about is winning, because politics is now sport. 

Since I know a lot of you won't watch the channel 4 investigation I linked, the CEO of Cambridge Analytica literally says "It doesn't matter if it's untrue as long as they believe it". Steve Bannon was on the board of Cambridge Analytica. They were an integral part of the Trump campaign.  I highly recommend you watch those videos, only about 15 minutes each.

 

 

As an aside, @Ethan Tremblay I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and say that judging from your postings over the past year I reckon you've visited /pol more than a few times. Get out dude, it's a cesspool. I strongly suspect it's where Cambridge seeded these memes in the first place, and is what Mark Turnbull (from the video above) was referring to when he said the "bloodstream of the internet". If I'm off the mark, I apologise, it's just the sense I get from a few of your posts. 

 

 

 

[dieter 3,325]

20 minutes ago, Choke said:

Funny you should say that, the Brits worked it out and are currently producing a series. First 3 episodes are out.

https://www.channel4.com/news/data-democracy-and-dirty-tricks-cambridge-analytica-uncovered-investigation-expose

 

Only last week I posted in the fake news thread a report citing an Oxford study that said right wingers share and believe more fake news than left wingers. And now we see why - they were being deliberately fed this crap to win elections by a sophisticated and illegal campaign. It's not that they are worse people or more vulnerable - they were targeted in a very specific way.

 

Oh and today a Fox News commentator quit saying he didn't want to be part of the propaganda machine:

"Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration," wrote Ralph Peters, a Fox News "strategic analyst."

"Over my decade with Fox, I long was proud of the association. Now I am ashamed," he wrote.

"Today, I feel that Fox News is assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law, while fostering corrosive and unjustified paranoia among viewers." 

Source:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomnamako/ralph-peters?utm_term=.bk7QALjAQ#.imG3dwyd3

 

So lets say it's 4 years ago. You're a reasonable conservative. You watch Fox News as your source of factual information. It degenerates into a "propaganda machine" (as quoted by Ralph Peters, above) without you noticing. At the same time your Facebook page subtly starts to contain more and more false and misleading information about political matters. Information specifically designed by Cambridge Analytica to ensure you vote the right the way. This is political advertising but illegally not labelled as such, and therefore bypasses the normal alarm bells that overlay your rationality when you are exposed to political ads.

Now 4 years later, your guy is President and is talking about firing the man investigating his campaign for the very crimes perpetrated against you on your Facebook feed. But you don't care, because Cambridge and Fox have done such a great job reducing your ability to objectively evaluate politics that you believe everything they spew at you. But your guy won. And all you are about is winning, because politics is now sport. 

Since I know a lot of you won't watch the channel 4 investigation I linked, the CEO of Cambridge Analytica literally says "It doesn't matter if it's untrue as long as they believe it". Steve Bannon was on the board of Cambridge Analytica. They were an integral part of the Trump campaign.  I highly recommend you watch those videos, only about 15 minutes each.

 

 

As an aside, @Ethan Tremblay I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and say that judging from your postings over the past year I reckon you've visited /pol more than a few times. Get out dude, it's a cesspool. I strongly suspect it's where Cambridge seeded these memes in the first place, and is what Mark Turnbull (from the video above) was referring to when he said the "bloodstream of the internet". If I'm off the mark, I apologise, it's just the sense I get from a few of your posts. 

 

 

 

This Cambridge Group rings a bell. If I'm not mistaken one of their top dudes came to Melbourne not that long ago and John Fain interviewed him. Either that or there was someone trying to alert us about this group, and the more I think about it, the more I think it was the latter...Do you recall coming across them before?

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Previously we knew about them leveraging huge amounts of data for political campaigns, but the revelation that the data may have been both obtained and used illegally is new, to me at least.

The channel 4 videos also have the CEO admitting to interfering with foreign elections, setting honey traps, bribes etc which are also of course illegal.

Seriously watch them. They're startling.

[dieter 3,325]

8 minutes ago, Choke said:

Previously we knew about them leveraging huge amounts of data for political campaigns, but the revelation that the data may have been both obtained and used illegally is new, to me at least.

The channel 4 videos also have the CEO admitting to interfering with foreign elections, setting honey traps, bribes etc which are also of course illegal.

Seriously watch them. They're startling.

It's like a former CIA executive telling someone on CNN that the USA interfered in countless countries, then proceeded to name them, Chile, Iran, Venezuela, Colombia etc etc etc

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

35 minutes ago, dieter said:

It's like a former CIA executive telling someone on CNN that the USA interfered in countless countries, then proceeded to name them, Chile, Iran, Venezuela, Colombia etc etc etc

Yeah feels the same doesn't it.

I have a feeling there will be more sickening revelations when Mueller finishes his investigation. Assuming Trump doesn't replace Rosenstein with someone who'll fire him as Nixon did. Mueller's already indicted the following:

1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, pleaded guilty in October to making false statements to the FBI.

2) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December to making false statements to the FBI.

3) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted in October in Washington, DC on charges of conspiracy, money laundering, false statements, and failure to disclose foreign assets — all related to his work for Ukrainian politicians before he joined the Trump campaign. He’s pleaded not guilty on all counts. Then, in February, Mueller filed a new case against him in Virginia, with tax, financial, and bank fraud charges.

4) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But he has now agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.

5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller.

22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine

source coz I was too lazy to type them all out, was just the first thing I googled when I looked for a list of Mueller's indictments.

[leave it to deever 17,511]

On 3/16/2018 at 10:58 PM, dieter said:

What do you mean by that? All USA Presidents have been first and foremost warmongers, and, ironically, it was during the dwarf-brained d grade Hollywood extra called Nancy, I meant Ronald, that the whole of street level, lower class, blue collar USA residents were shoved down the schit hole . It sounds like you believe that's where they belong. The Strumpet promised them heaps, he had/has absolutely no idea about how to deliver the dispossessed from their misery - how the hell can a multi millionaire psychopath ever deliver aid to the downtrodden - so, like I say, what exactly do you mean?

JFK was hardly a warmonger.

In fact during October 2013 he saved the world from extinction as he found a way out of the impossible Russian aggression and the Cuba crisis without pressing the button.