TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 134 of 170
Why don't we get to the topic at hand...Trump and his infinite wisdom.
...and here we go!
Trump rejects the Intelligence community's finds:
Another source briefed on the intelligence told NBC News that the U.S. government has identified specific Russian actors it believes were involved in computer systems hacks — based on intercepted communications, human tips and computer forensics.
...and then we have this:
Briefings, Trump No Go!
A former senior intelligence official also noted Trump's assertion Sunday on Fox News that he doesn't always take the Presidential Daily Briefing — the top-secret briefing on national security developments — because "I'm, like, a smart person."
(Laughs hysterically, or LOL, whichever you prefer) You can't make this shit up.
"It is curious that someone who refuses to take intelligence briefings has decided that he doesn't agree with the analysis contained in them," the former official said.
(Intelligence and Trump, laughs hysterically x2)
Rep. David Schiff contributed this:
"Perhaps, once he has taken office, Mr. Trump will go to the CIA and look at the rows of memorial stars in the lobby — each representing a fallen officer — and reflect on his disparagement of the intelligence community's work," he said.
Well said.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/intelligence-agencies-distresse
d-by-trumps-rejection-of-findings-on-russia/ar-AAlqRcc?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why don't we get to the topic at hand...Trump and his infinite wisdom.
I'm sure your endless obsession with Trump will magically fix the problem that DEMOCRATS HAVE NO ORGANIZED PLAN TO OPPOSE TRUMP, AND NO AGENDA THAT PEOPLE WILL RALLY TO.
So, what are you going to do about it? Whine some more? Carp some more? Pout some more? Yeah. That'll work. (not)
How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AS CLINTON AND OBAMA LIMP OFF THE STAGE, A LOOK INTO WHAT THEY DID THAT WENT WRONG
There are many articles like the ones I posted, above, and below, about what democrats did wrong. The problem is, they don't come from democrats - not the voters and not the politicians.
Unless democrats can come to grips with what they did wrong, nothing will change the pattern of democrats being marginalized in national, state and local politics.
With that in mind, I hope democrats here will put some thought into what they should be doing differently.
The Democrats Screwed Up
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/opinion/the-democrats-screwed-up.htm
l
Despite all the discussion of demographic forces that doomed the G.O.P., it will soon control the presidency as well as both chambers of Congress and two of every three governor’s offices. And that’s not just a function of James Comey, Julian Assange and misogyny. Democrats who believe so are dangerously mistaken.
What’s Wrong With the Democratic Platform
It has good language on many issues, but it lacks an overarching vision.
https://www.thenation.com/article/whats-wrong-with-the-democratic-plat
form/
How did Democrats lose 2016 US Presidential Election
http://viapopuli.com/democrats-lose-2016-us-presidential-election
First, practically stealing the primary on behalf of the preferred corporate candidate, as opposed to the popular candidate who advocated what people cared for.
7 Reasons Donald Trump Won The Presidential Election
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/12/501848636/7-reasons-donald-trump-won-the
-presidential-election
4. Clinton did not fire up the Obama Coalition.
Clinton got nearly 5 million fewer votes overall than Obama
How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump sets John Bolton to be #2 at the State Department. Bolton is a neocon still defending President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, if you forgot. He now defends Trump.
Starting at 2:12 on the video, Bolton is seriously suggesting that the hacks into Democratic Party computers might have been false flag operations, presumably with the goal of making it look like Russia supported Donald Trump. This would ruin Trump's reputation and guarantee a win for Hillary Clinton. But that means Bolton is completely nuts.
And Bolton doesn't even make sense on his own terms. No campaign in its right mind would do this, and certainly not Hillary’s campaign desperately trying to keep the word "email" in any form out of the public discourse.
Dark insinuations of false flag operations are a favorite among conspiracy theorists. They think it makes them sound sophisticated and worldly. This means that either Bolton is a conspiracy theorist or else he doesn't mind sounding like one if that's what it take to defend his side. And soon he'll be the #2 guy at the State Department, the person really running things while Tillerson provides the public face. God help us.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The authoritarian leaders who are eagerly awaiting a Trump presidency
by Echo Huang
http://qz.com/857918/the-authoritarian-leaders-who-are-eagerly-awaitin
g-a-trump-presidency/
Since Donald Trump won the US presidential elections, he has been receiving congratulations from world leaders.
While that’s to be expected, the enthusiasm for a Trump presidency from leaders with less-than-stellar human rights records has raised some eyebrows. Some of them, such as Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte, seem hopeful for a US president who won’t interfere with how they govern their countries. Others, such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin or Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, believe relations between their countries and the US will improve under Trump.
Here are some authoritarian leaders who have expressed support for Trump:
1. Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte
Duterte, who’s earned a nickname as “Trump of the East,” said he would welcome the opportunity to be friends with Trump. “I can always be a friend to anybody especially to a president, a chief executive of another country,” he said, adding Trump “has not meddled in the human rights.”
That’s a big plus in Duterte’s book, who has made no secret of his feelings around human rights. “If it involves human rights, I don’t give a shit,” he said in October. Since coming into office this year, he’s waged a bloody war on drugs that has killed thousands, including children and innocent people.
In December, Duterte recounted a conversation he had with Trump, in which the US president-elect praised how he was governing the Philippines: “You’re doing great. I know what’s your worry about these Americans criticizing you. You are doing good, go ahead.”
2. Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko
The man dubbed “Europe’s last dictator” reached out to congratulate Trump just hours after his victory (paywall). Lukashenko, who has jailed opponents and crushed opposition marches over the past 21 years, said Trump was helping return the US “to real democracy” and that his victory was “testimony to the American people’s choice in favor of a politics based on honesty, responsibility, and a search of change.”
3. Cambodian prime minister Samdech Hun Sen
The prime minister who has ruled Cambodia with an iron fist for three decades endorsed Trump in November because “Trump is a businessman” who “would not want to have war.”
Hun Sen is known for cracking down on opposition groups and was accused by a political analyst of shooting and killing an activist this July. In November, he congratulated Trump, writing on his Facebook page: “I believe that the policies of the Republican Party, which offered value to the freedom of humanity … would continue to be warm and firm for democracy, rights, and freedom of Khmer people in Cambodia.”
4. Russian president Vladimir Putin
Since Trump won the election in November, Putin has come out to say he is willing to “restore” relations between Russia and the US. “During my recent telephone conversation with Mr. Donald Trump, our opinions coincided that the current, unsatisfactory state of Russia-US relations, undoubtedly must be straightened out,” Putin said at a foreign policy conference in Moscow on Dec. 7.
Indeed, Russia appeared to be so eager for a Trump presidency that it may have intervened with the US presidential election, as some members from the CIA and National Security Administration have recently suggested.
5. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad
To Assad, Trump is a “natural ally.”
“We cannot tell anything about what he’s going to do, but if, let’s say if, he is going to fight the terrorists, of course we are going to be ally, natural ally in that regard with the Russian, with the Iranian, with many other countries,” the Syrian president said in an interview with Portuguese state TV RTP this November. Trump has said the US’s problem is not Assad (paywall), whose brutal war tactics have involved the use of chemical weapons, and that he would prefer to work with Russia, and thus A
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What the Democrats did wrong was not to open the field of candidates wider than just Bernie, Hillary & Martin O'Malley. The Dems should have attracted TRUMP! He could have gone to the Democratic side as easily as the Republican side if only the Dems had been more welcoming to his personal eccentricities and his world view. He beat all the Republicans in the primary. He beat one old woman. Trump could be President-Elect with one twist: all his cabinet could be Democrats rather than Republicans, if only the Democrats had been kinder to him . . .
Originally posted by 1kiki:
There are many articles like the ones I posted, above, and below, about what democrats did wrong. The problem is, they don't come from democrats - not the voters and not the politicians.
Unless democrats can come to grips with what they did wrong, nothing will change the pattern of democrats being marginalized in national, state and local politics.
Elections are won by giving the people what they want. They want Trump. The Democratic voters (excluding the party officials) could have recruited him. Instead, the Democratic voters of Manhattan booed Trump when he voted. That is no way for those people to act if they want a rich, famous, boorish, high quality candidate for 2020 to replace Bernie, Hillary & Martin O'Malley.
I saw a serious article about what a Democrat should change about themselves to make them more like Trump if they want to be elected President in 2020. It even gives good advice to Democrats running at the the state and local level. Here is a sample:
Donald Trump loves McDonald’s
Trump, like Bill Clinton of 25 years ago, loves McDonald’s and isn’t afraid to tell you about it.
“The Big Macs are great,” he told Anderson Cooper at a campaign town hall. “The Quarter Pounder. It’s great stuff.”
This isn’t just unhealthy — it’s remarkably outré. Trump isn’t touting the virtues of Danny Meyer’s celebrity chef–infused Shake Shack or the magic of the West Coast’s legendary In-N-Out Burger, which refuses to franchise outside a relatively narrow geographical area to ensure its beef can be distributed fresh. Hillary Clinton snuck off to organic-friendly Chipotle. Trump went for the tried and true: the unfashionable yet ubiquitous simple pleasure of the Big Mac.
Identity politics is everywhere
Something worth noting is that Trump himself is actually not blind to personal health issues. He has a history of alcoholism in his family and consequently abstains from alcohol and other drugs. A great many Americans could improve their health along a number of dimensions, including weight, by emulating Trump and giving up booze.
But even though Trump is a teetotaler, he does not engage in public anti-alcohol messaging or campaign as a temperance advocate.
Working-class people who enjoy both fast-food burgers and beer are well aware that Trump likes Big Macs too, while Democrats think it’s very important to make sure SNAP benefits are redeemable at farmers markets so rich and poor alike can enjoy the benefits of eating local, seasonal produce. Trump doesn’t drink beer, but he doesn’t advertise that fact.
This is identity politics just as much as campaigning with the Mothers of the Movement is. Neither Trump nor Puzder is, obviously, a real working-class person. But there’s an old joke about two barefoot guys in the woods who come across a bear. One starts lacing up his sneakers, and the other asks why, pointing out that he’s never going to outrun the bear.
“I don’t need to outrun the bear,” he explains. “I just need to outrun you.”
A Thickburger or two doesn’t make Trump a member of the white working class. But it’s good enough to outrun the vast majority of Democratic Party elected officials from either of the main factions.
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/9/13884838/puzder-populism
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump’s ‘Good ol’ days’ also were the bad air days
Climate change is a slow-building, largely invisible threat, hard to explain or demonstrate to the general public — which is one reason lavishly funded climate deniers have been so successful at obfuscating the issue. So it’s worth pointing out that most environmental regulation involves much more obvious, immediate, sometimes deadly threats. And much of that regulation may well be headed for oblivion.
Think about what America was like in 1970, the year the EPA was founded. It was still an industrial nation, with roughly a quarter of the workforce employed in manufacturing, often at relatively high wages, in large part because of a still-strong union movement. (Funny how Trumpist pledges to bring back the good old days never mention that part.)
It was also, however, a very polluted country. Choking smog was quite common in major cities; in the Los Angeles area, extreme pollution alerts, sometimes accompanied by warnings that even healthy adults should stay indoors and move as little as possible, were fairly common.
It’s far better now —not perfect, but much better. These days, to experience the kind of pollution crisis that used to be all too frequent in Los Angeles or Houston, you have to go to places like Beijing or New Delhi. And the improvement in air quality has had clear, measurable benefits. For example, we’re seeing significant improvements in lung function among children in the Los Angeles area, clearly tied to reduced pollution.
The key point is that better air didn’t happen by accident: It was a direct result of regulation — regulation that was bitterly opposed at every step by special interests that attacked the scientific evidence of harm from pollution, meanwhile insisting that limiting their emissions would kill jobs.
These special interests were, as you might guess, wrong about everything. The health benefits of cleaner air are overwhelmingly clear. Meanwhile, experience shows that a growing economy is perfectly consistent with an improving environment. In fact, reducing pollution brings large economic benefits once you take into account health care costs and the effects of lower pollution on productivity.
Meanwhile, claims of huge business costs from environmental programs have been wrong time and time again. This may be no surprise when interest groups are trying to maintain their right to pollute. It turns out, however, that even the EPA itself has a history of overestimating the costs of its regulations.
So the looming degradation of environmental protection will be a bad thing on every level: bad for the economy as well as bad for our health. But don’t expect rational arguments to that effect to sway the people who will soon be running the government. After all, what’s bad for America can still be good for the likes of the Koch brothers. Besides, my correspondents keep telling me that arguing policy on the basis of facts and figures is arrogant and elitist, so there.
The good news, sort of, is that some of the nasty environmental consequences of Trumpism will probably be visible — literally — quite soon. And when bad air days make a comeback, we’ll know exactly whom to blame.
www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/opinion/trump-and-pruitt-will-make-america-
gasp-again.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm using the Trump-obsessed democratic contingent here as an indicator of what it will take for those democratic voters to join reality. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/democrats-donald-trump-232491 Democrats fear another Trump trouncing Leaderless and lacking a strategy, top party officials worry they're not ready for Trump's first 100 days. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/309660-democ
Originally posted by G:
I'm sure your endless obsession with the Democrats will magically fix the problem that DEMOCRATS HAVE NO ORGANIZED PLAN TO OPPOSE TRUMP, AND NO AGENDA THAT PEOPLE WILL RALLY TO.
So, what are you going to do about it? Whine some more? Carp some more? Pout some more? Yeah. That'll work. (not)
rats-where-the-hell-are-you Democrats: Where the hell are You? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democratic-party-future-poll_us_58
4dad0ce4b04c8e2bb04ba1 Democrats Are Not Very Excited About The Future Of Their Party
So far the democratic party is rudderless and foundering, with no one speaking for them, and no direction. They don't look promising as a counter to Trump.
What will it take for the hypnotized to tear their eyes off of Trump and turn to actively supporting a new direction? Or are they so enmeshed in the democratic party's identity politics that they literally can't conceive of any other pov?
And what will happen if the democratic party stands up for them post-Trump about as well as Obama and Hillary have to date? ie not at all
How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think there are 4, not 3. There is the left and right, or the Bernie and Hillary, branches of the Democrats. Then there is plutocrat and populist, or the McConnell/Ryan and Trump, branches of the Republicans. For some technical reasons written into the Federal and State Constitutions, there can only be two major political parties. Since 4 parties (or 3) are too many there will be problems in the immediate future of the USA.
Originally posted by G:
Hopefully from the ashes of these 3 something new and better will emerge. It's hard to make progress when you're standing still.
See the very short article "Why Only Two Major Parties?"
www.factcheck.org/2008/01/why-only-two-political-parties/
Since the Republicans control all the old Confederate States, one political solution would be for the South to rise again, and the Republicans go their own way. But in short order I'd expect the South to invade the North in a reenactment of the Civil War, using modern weapons rather than black powder rifles and cavalry charges on horseback. That would make thrilling television entertainment, even better than Firefly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Apparently you didn't read your own article.
I read through the whole article carefully, thinking that it MUST have been linked for a reason related to this thread, and all I got out of it was Now there's 12 minutes of my life that I'll never get back! What did it tell me that Moneyball didn't? - SIGNY
Moneyball did not realize the deeper reason for the inefficiencies in the market for players: They sprang directly from the inner workings of the human mind of the “experts”, not the players.- SECOND
Quote:That means Billy Beane and Moneyball.
Bill James was then busy popularizing an approach, rooted in statistical reasoning, to thinking about baseball. With some help from the Oakland Athletics...
Quote:Both Morey and Beane are attempting to build a "model" ... a predictive calculator based on measured qualities and mathematics ... to find "the better ball player". Like ALL models, its success depends on constantly crosschecking the model with actual results, and then "tweaking" the model (adding new parameters or eliminating or downplaying old parameters or adding correction factors).
And yet you completely missed that main idea, Signym.Quote:
You linking that particular article tells me, SECOND, that you've lost the point about the value of people as independent thinkers. Because all of the article tells me is that "they" are working on metrics to pick the best tools out of a lineup of people: Who will never rise above, or fall below, or do anything unexpected, but be very predictable.
With a couple of sentences, Signym, you gave a perfect demonstration of what is wrong with how your mind analyzes problems and creates solutions. I predict you can’t understand what you did wrong, but I will give you some clues:
Daryl Morey is the independent thinker, Signym. And you got the article’s lesson backwards: people are NOT very predictable, despite all the data Morey gathers on players.
Models are BASED ON predictability. If there is some source of unpredictability in your model it's useless. Morey is trying to eliminate the unpredictability of human performance by measuring more and better and by doing what most scientific modelers do: "tweaking" his model to eliminate past failures.
Where that logic breaks down is that all models only work in a certain mathematical space .... that is, certain underlying principles have to remain the same, or the model doesn't work any more. Maybe someone comes along who changes the nature of the game itself - a sharpshooter like Curry. Or maybe the economy collapses and the players are suddenly much more motivated than before. Does Morey understand that his model only works in a pre-defined mathematical space? Because the problem is that models are EXCEPTIONALLY good at predicting the past ... you can tweak them based on where they failed .... IN THE PAST ... but in order to make good predictions you need more than statistics.
Quote:He can??? How would you know??? Because he didn't. Wow, that are some big balls ya got there, SECOND, borrowing Morey's cloak like that for your own purposes!
But he can make predictions such as the statistical likelihood that Trump will have conflicts of interests because he and his children are creating, with every new contract they sign, new possible conflicts between what is best for the Trump family fortune and what is best for America.-SEOCND
And more blah blah blah
Quote:I'm awfully happy for you that you got a job at that hotel, SECOND! Don't let that discourage you, everybody's got to start somewhere!
So tell me, SECOND, do you think you could pass a screening interview? - SIGNY
I interviewed twice on the same day in Houston, near the Galleria. Both divisions wanted to hire me and I would have been happy with only one job offer. That was a very memorable day and is what happens when you graduate from UT Austin.= SECOND
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME