LondonLax Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 I also downloaded the book (from Amazon). If the book is to be believed then the point about Trump's key staff being seen to be parroting Trumps thoughts so he stays in favour with them would be accurate. In fact it seems like long lists of statistics or facts about why CNN are bad would be counterproductive in trying to win over Trump. He appreciates gut emotion rather than empirical evidence. Interestingly I think the person who comes out with the most credit is actually Steve Bannon, at least he seems to have a proper intelligent plan (even if I disagree with almost all of it). I also actually found quite a few parallels between Bannon and Jeremy Corbyn from reading the book. Bannon pretty much sees himself as an old school protectionist labour union type of guy but re-branded to appeal to the modern anti globalisation demographic of working class voters. I think Corbyn is trying to appeal to the same demographic with similar themes. Kushner (and Ivanka) are described as 'Wall St Democrats' - I guess the UK equivalent term would be Blairites (and indeed apparently they are good friends with Blair) Whist Preibus was a traditional Republican party conservative. These three players had been directing policy in three different directions leaving the policy chaos we see. Whilst Trump himself doesn't seem to mind which why he goes and just wants to be popular. It seems like the Blairites have come out on top though and will be directing policy for the rest of his term unless Russia (or dementia) gets in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted January 9, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) Stephen Miller had to be escorted off the CNN set by security after Jake Tapper ended the interview. Their dialogue did continue after the interview was over. Quote "Jake, what I care about is having three minutes to tell the truth about the president of the United States," Miller said to Tapper after "State of the Union" cut to commercial. "You had plenty of time,” Tapper said. “I let you give like a three-minute filibuster at the very top.”"You gave me two minutes," Miller shot back, later adding, "You should be ashamed of yourself. Honestly." “This is the reason they don’t put you out on TV,” Tapper said. “OK? This is the reason.”“You spent the entire interview attacking CNN ... OK, so don’t act all offended," the host added later in the exchange. “I’m not acting offended,” Miller said. “I am offended. I’m offended by you and I’m offended by your network.”Miller reportedly was escorted off the set by CNN security after refusing to leave after that. http://thehill.com/homenews/media/367942-stephen-miller-and-cnns-tapper-face-off-in-off-camera-dispute-you-should-be Edited January 9, 2018 by TheAuthority Link added Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Friendly reminder that Miller once inserted himself into the final lap of a girls' marathon/race to make a point that women were inferior athletes. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 17 minutes ago, Keyblade said: Friendly reminder that Miller once inserted himself into the final lap of a girls' marathon/race to make a point that women were inferior athletes. That sentence could have gone really wrong. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazzap24 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 On 08/01/2018 at 16:21, sne said: So Oprah for president now? Marvelous, what are here credentials for that position? Handing out free crap to desperate housewives and being rich? Dr Phil as secretary of state? Well she has about the same credentials as the current incumbent and he got there without even giving out free crap, he was just rich! Credentials are gone. They are a footnote in history like ‘facts’ and ‘rational debate’. She’s about the best chance the Democrats would have of getting back in. They’d be crazy not to let her run if she wants to. I’d be very surprised if the next couple of presidents are actually ‘qualified’ politicians. That ship has sailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 9, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted January 9, 2018 She couldn't be any worse than the current idiot. However, if I was her I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. The hatestorm would make Obama look universally loved. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 22 minutes ago, mjmooney said: She couldn't be any worse than the current idiot. However, if I was her I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. The hatestorm would make Obama look universally loved. ... couldn't be any worse than what Trump has had to put up with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 9, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted January 9, 2018 9 minutes ago, villakram said: ... couldn't be any worse than what Trump has had to put up with He deserves it though. And it could. And would. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 This is a bad trend in politics. You shouldn't be able to run for president, PM, or any position of great power with zero proper experience. Just because you have money, doesn't mean you will make a great leader. The US needs to put a stop to this. Even if Oprah would be a much calmer and respectable candidate, she still is severely under-qualified to run for office. If she wants to try her hand at running a state, then go ahead. But going from retired talk show host to President is ridiculous regardless of political affiliation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 28 minutes ago, villakram said: ... couldn't be any worse than what Trump has had to put up with Obama had to endure much worse than Trump with significantly less ammo. Don't delude yourself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazzap24 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 1 hour ago, mjmooney said: She couldn't be any worse than the current idiot. However, if I was her I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. The hatestorm would make Obama look universally loved. Agree on all points. If I was her, there is no way I’d considered it, but if I was a Democrat, I’d be begging her to run. They (republicans) would absolutely go after her, but I think she could convince enough Trumpers to switch allegiance. She’s got more chance than Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, etc etc that’s for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 9, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, wazzap24 said: I think she could convince enough Trumpers to switch allegiance. REALLY?? Trump supporters? A black woman? They'd be foaming at the mouth and loading up the automatic weapons as soon as she was announced. Edited January 9, 2018 by mjmooney 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted January 9, 2018 Author Share Posted January 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Czechlad said: This is a bad trend in politics. You shouldn't be able to run for president, PM, or any position of great power with zero proper experience. Just because you have money, doesn't mean you will make a great leader. The US needs to put a stop to this. Even if Oprah would be a much calmer and respectable candidate, she still is severely under-qualified to run for office. If she wants to try her hand at running a state, then go ahead. But going from retired talk show host to President is ridiculous regardless of political affiliation. Trump has changed the game. Anyone with throwaway money and a bit of charisma will be lining up now. "The Rock" wants to run. People talk about Tom Hanks. I'd rather the nominee be someone from the trenches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted January 9, 2018 Author Share Posted January 9, 2018 39 minutes ago, mjmooney said: REALLY?? Trump supporters? A black woman? They'd be foaming at the mouth and loading up the automatic weapons as soon as she was announced. Not all Trump Goblins are closeted Klan. A lot of them are totally ignorant of politics and the process, but they love their televisions. Oprah is a popular TV star, that will be enough for people. It won't take much for people to change their vote, because Trump is so controversial at the moment. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 1 hour ago, mjmooney said: REALLY?? Trump supporters? A black woman? They'd be foaming at the mouth and loading up the automatic weapons as soon as she was announced. To win back the White House the democrats just needed to win back the traditional Democrat working class areas in the Midwest ‘rust belt’. As I was talking about above, Trumps (Jeremy Corbyn style) trade protectionism message appealed to these voters more than Clinton’s globalisation/free trade message. A Bernie Sanders (or even an Oprah) could win back these blue collar voters and win the White House. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Fusion GPS testimony has been released. Republicans were desperately trying to keep this away from public view and now we see why. 7 references to "mafia" links 20 references to Putin links Trump repeatedly said he and his buildings were worth less than people and agencies imagined the intelligence community seems to think Trump's being blackmailed the specific reason for the blackmail has to do with "Russians having cameras in all the luxury hotel rooms" **PEE TAPE Steele believed a "human source from inside the Trump organization" had already gone to FBI: "a voluntary source, someone who was concerned with the same concerns we had" (pp.175-6) - that being, that the now president was/is being blackmailed by the Kremlin. The FBI viewed Steele's info as credible because they already had the same info from a Trump insider. Correction from Fusion GPS (the Australian diplomat was the source that opened the FBI investigation) on page 154, on Trump "However, he and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin" on page 242, Fusion believed because of their research Carter Page was compromised, and he was being offered business deals for his cooperation on page 279, Simpson said someone was already killed because of the information contained in the dossier (because they were revealed to be a source..I wonder if that would happen if the information contained was all false /s) on page 73, "So in the course of reading that litigation we would follow up on things that were interesting, such as a libel case against a journalist that he settled, which, in other words, he didn't prevail in his attempts to prove that he was a billionaire." on pages 71-72, "One of the things we found out was that, you know, when it comes to paying taxes, Donald Trump claims to not have much stuff. At least the Trump organization. So they would make filings with various state and local authorities saying that their buildings weren't worth much." on page 179, "Sometime thereafter the FBI -- I understand Chris severed his relationship with the FBI out of concern that he didn't know what was happening inside the FBI and there was a concern that the FBI was being manipulated for political ends by the Trump people and that we didn't really understand what was going on. So he stopped dealing with them. " on page 296, "We learned that Felix Sater had some connections with these people, and it's been more recently in the media that he's helping the government of Kazakhstan to recover this money. There's been media reports that the money went into the Trump Soho or it went into the company that built the Trump Soho. I can't remember the name" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Brumerican Posted January 9, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 9, 2018 Wanted to see what the fuss was about so bought a copy from SCOPE earlier . I'm only 30 pages in and they haven't really got to the Trump stuff yet, but it's absolutely breathtaking . It appears that there is a hidden romantic subplot to this whole story that the MSM isn't talking about . Maybe Trump isn't the bad guy after all ? I think I got a UK version judging by the cover. 2 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 An interesting line in a very appropriate article pointing out the obvious regarding Oprah in the intercept "Prior to Trump, the only presidents to never have served in public office prior to being elected to the White House were Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower. The first won the Mexican-American War; the second, the Civil War; and the third, the Second World War." https://theintercept.com/2018/01/08/oprah-winfrey-president-2020-trump/?comments=1#comments How does one even begin to interpret this statement. Interesting times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted January 10, 2018 Author Share Posted January 10, 2018 Yer man Steele is being treated very badly by the GOP. This outrageous treatment will only serve to weaken the country, because now more than ever, overseas intelligence sources will hesitate to get involved. These Republicans are total idiots, it's stunning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 2 hours ago, villakram said: An interesting line in a very appropriate article pointing out the obvious regarding Oprah in the intercept "Prior to Trump, the only presidents to never have served in public office prior to being elected to the White House were Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower. The first won the Mexican-American War; the second, the Civil War; and the third, the Second World War." https://theintercept.com/2018/01/08/oprah-winfrey-president-2020-trump/?comments=1#comments How does one even begin to interpret this statement. Interesting times... I get the sentiment and over looking “ Eisenhower won the Second World War “ and assuming they mean he was the the senior commander then using the same logic Winfield Scott won the Mexican - American War, not Zachary Taylor so the argument doesn’t hold true #pedant 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts