-
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Donsteppa Bang on. Most of the rest is just pollies flip-flopping according to what Assange is releasing.
The article is more journos flip flopping, I don't think Clinton or Obama ever did anything but despise him and Trump became a fan when he was dumping democrats emails . Snowden trying to take some sort of moral high ground is pathetic though.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
Do you have [proof that the GOP were hacked? Actual proof. Not just leaked nonsense and left wing opinion.
You mean do I have the FBI & CIA files? Really? Literally no one has that yet. What out is stuff like -
The CIA based its conclusion about Russia hacking to influence the election not on irrefutable evidence but largely on its analysis of the fact that the Russians hacked both political parties while only publicizing information damaging to Democrats
Or
The CIA's new conclusion was based on its latest and most complete analysis of intelligence on the hacking, including the finding that Russian hackers breached GOP individuals and organizations prior to the election, including Republican House members, thought leaders and non-profits to the GOP, a former senior law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the hack investigation told CNN.
But I'm guessing you wont buy that till someone from the CIA personally briefs you
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
I bet if they get the 10% tax rate to repatriate their offshore billions, you'll see these plants in the US.
I bet if the 10% repatriation law comes through (and it will) Apple will do a lot of share buy backs & pay a special dividend. And spend the rest on designing a fully automated assdembly line.
-
@gollum said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
Do you have [proof that the GOP were hacked? Actual proof. Not just leaked nonsense and left wing opinion.
You mean do I have the FBI & CIA files? Really? Literally no one has that yet. What out is stuff like -
The CIA based its conclusion about Russia hacking to influence the election not on irrefutable evidence but largely on its analysis of the fact that the Russians hacked both political parties while only publicizing information damaging to Democrats
Or
The CIA's new conclusion was based on its latest and most complete analysis of intelligence on the hacking, including the finding that Russian hackers breached GOP individuals and organizations prior to the election, including Republican House members, thought leaders and non-profits to the GOP, a former senior law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the hack investigation told CNN.
But I'm guessing you wont buy that till someone from the CIA personally briefs you
Right so you cannot say they were hacked as you are basing it on nothing. The official findings have not been released yet, and the CIA have found no such thing, that is just a claim from anonymous sources. Sloppy journalism is starting to become more and more common.
I wont buy it until the actual briefings are made and reports are made official..... unlike you who seems ready to buy anything and then spout it as fact.You literally said nobody had the findings yet, but that didn't stop you stating as fact a supposed finding from it... jeez.
-
So this wall of Trumps. Sounds like it's actually going ahead. He's still adamant that Mexico will pay for it. I can't see how that will happen. I mean it is stupid as all hell but he did promise it. Anyone care to enlighten how this is going to be spun so he won't lose face in this?
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@gollum
It's almost as if.........you want Trump to fail.I have a very cynical view of the system. A huge amount of what he is doing is great - the shaking up weapons procurment for example, gutting Dodd-Frank, cutting corporation tax & allowing the repatriation. BUT my issue is not with Trump, its with the system & the way multinationals work, I don't for a second think any of the major multinationals will use their cash to invest in line jobs, first because those jobs don't exist. But second because its not a good commerical use of that cash.
If Amazon repatriate are they going to add people or pump up the robotics company they poured cash into a couple of years ago & which automates all their warehouses now? Etc. Carrier was tiny example.
All the major US companies have been able to borrow at record lows, and they have, Apple issued bonds last year - to invest? Nope to pay special dividends & do buy backs, all the firms able to tap the market up thanks to the rate levels have.
Repatriation will see a huge spike in tech share prices & a massive level of low level high tech M&A. And no actual jobs.
Same on defence, where so many congressmen & senators are flat out owned by defence contactors that a scheme like the F35 cannot be cancelled. John McCain (who is a big roadblock to Trump) has got more defence cash tossed at him over the last 20 years than anyone in US government, and its been well spent.
I think regardless it'll be spun well by Trump (as with the Boeing & Carrier deals), but it wont actually flow through.
-
Donald Trump to break campaign pledges 'by asking Congress for cash to build border wall, not Mexico'
Donald Trump will reportedly ask Congress to finance construction of a wall along the southern border as early as April, a move that would break the president-elect's campaign promises that he would force Mexico to pay for it.
House Republicans and the incoming administration would not have to seek authorisation for the wall, according to CNN.
Instead, they would use a 2006 law signed by former President George W. Bush that authorised the construction of 700 miles-plus of “physical barrier” on the southern border.To secure the money to build it, transition officials have told House Republican leaders they would want to add billions of dollars into the spending bill that needs to pass by April 28 to keep the government open, a senior House GOP source told CNN.
The move would set up a fight with Senate Democrats and potentially a government shutdown."It was not done in the Obama administration, so by funding the authorisation that's already happened a decade ago, we could start the process of meeting Mr Trump's campaign pledge to secure the border," Indiana Republican Congressman Luke Messer said.
"Democrats may well find themselves in the position to shut down all of government to stop the buildout of a wall, or of a barrier, or of a fence," Mr Messer said.No decisions have been made, Republican sources said.
During the presidential campaign, Mr Trump vowed that Mexico would pay for the border wall. After the Republican candidate met President Enrique Pena Nieto in September, he said the pair has not discussed the financial issue - a claim swiftly contradicted by the Mexican leader.
"At the start of the conversation with Donald Trump I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall," Mr Nieto said at the time.
Mr Trump angered the Mexican leader hours later when, delivering an immigration speech at a rally, he declared: "We will build a great wall along the Southern border and Mexico will pay for the wall. One hundred percent. They don't know it yet but they're going to pay for it."Republicans believe Democrats would not dare shutdown the government over one of Mr Trump's most popular campaign promises.
Furthermore, it would be hard for Democrats to block the measure since a long list of Senate Democrats voted for the border measure a decade ago, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.Estimates of the wall's cost range from a few billion dollars to as much as $14 billion, yet that excludes other expenses, such as maintenance, border patrol agents and purchasing private property from Texas landowners.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
So this wall of Trumps. Sounds like it's actually going ahead. He's still adamant that Mexico will pay for it. I can't see how that will happen. I mean it is stupid as all hell but he did promise it. Anyone care to enlighten how this is going to be spun so he won't lose face in this?
How almost every politician who has to compromise on things. Obama made bold promises on the Affordable Health Care act that didn't end up eventuating. Don't know too much about NZ examples but in Australia Howard had his famous "never ever it's dead" comments about the GST (not to mention his "Lazarus with a triple by pass" comments on his own prospects of ever being leader again). Almost every party leadership change in the Westminster system starts with the challenger categorically ruling out a coup and supporting the incumbent approximately 48 hours before knifing them. People get over specific promises very quickly.
Honestly the whole "Mexico will pay for it" thing to me just seemed like a start point for negotiations. Now people seem to see Trump relenting pay for the wall himself as a win. If he had started with just wanting to build the wall all the focus would have been on should it/shouldn't it be built.
In the eventuality that Mexico doesn't pay for the wall Trump also can say I tried but they wouldn't so we will build it but we are instituting the punishments X, Y, Z - we will make them pay that way. He has already talked of negotiating/abolishing NAFTA so there is plenty currently on the table for him to take off.
In the same way people celebrate Obama for pushing through the ACA even though it was not even remotely close to what was promised (not his fault either), people will see a wall being built as a win regardless of how it is funded.
-
Its not really going ahead. its 700 miles. The actual border is 2,000m. Current wall is 500m.
The issue re Trump is more he campaigned on Trust me, I'm not a polititian, I'm not a liar like those other guys, when I say I will do something I do it. 100%
And his supporters talked about how great he was with his no bullshit & straight talking & totally different that was from the liars in Washington. His whole attraction was he wasn't like Obama & co. As we were told over & over.
So its holding him to what he campaigned on & was voted in on. The big thing is the speed of the unravelling. Drain the swamp, lock her up, build a wall right across & Mexico will 100% pay for it, sever ties with the banks & bash Goldmans.
These are all dead now, 14 days before he is sworn in. Its not like he's been in 18 months trying to fight congress to get these through & having to compromise (as with the case with ACA for example). They were bullshit when he said them & he's tossed them straight away.
@rotated said in US Politics:
Honestly the whole "Mexico will pay for it" thing to me just seemed like a start point for negotiations.
There haven't been any negotiations.
Its gone day one. As with say, appoint an investigator re Clinton. Look at the degree to which Frank spamed this site with youtube "proof" Clinton was dirty & the Alt Right unit on here gleefully talked about her being investigated. He didn't even pretend to do that, he just went, day 1 "well that was buillshit obv, congrats on falling for that morons".
And thats what we have for 4 years. A great combo of him going "nope, that was just a slogan" & his cheerleaders tying themselves in knots going "well, I knew that he didn't really mean that"
-
@gollum said in US Politics:
There haven't been any negotiations.
Its gone day one. As with say, appoint an investigator re Clinton. Look at the degree to which Frank spamed this site with youtube "proof" Clinton was dirty & the Alt Right unit on here gleefully talked about her being investigated. He didn't even pretend to do that, he just went, day 1 "well that was buillshit obv, congrats on falling for that morons".
And thats what we have for 4 years. A great combo of him going "nope, that was just a slogan" & his cheerleaders tying themselves in knots going "well, I knew that he didn't really mean that"
His comments today seem to be clear that Mexico will inevitably be paying for it. Whether this happens or not remains to be seen - and more than likely will take some slight of hand (i.e. we have defunded this aid program or trade concession equal to the cost of the wall) - but I'm sure nothing short of the Mexican president going to Home Depot and buying the supplies himself will painted as Trump backing off.
-
From Cartel land , I'm sure other states have similar civilians patrolling the border . Hopefully they are as reasonable as these guys seemed, they weren't getting free ammo and the authorities they worked with were in favour of it, their superiors weren't as they embarrassed them politically.
-
@rotated said in US Politics:
@gollum said in US Politics:
There haven't been any negotiations.
Its gone day one. As with say, appoint an investigator re Clinton. Look at the degree to which Frank spamed this site with youtube "proof" Clinton was dirty & the Alt Right unit on here gleefully talked about her being investigated. He didn't even pretend to do that, he just went, day 1 "well that was buillshit obv, congrats on falling for that morons".
And thats what we have for 4 years. A great combo of him going "nope, that was just a slogan" & his cheerleaders tying themselves in knots going "well, I knew that he didn't really mean that"
His comments today seem to be clear that Mexico will inevitably be paying for it. Whether this happens or not remains to be seen - and more than likely will take some slight of hand (i.e. we have defunded this aid program or trade concession equal to the cost of the wall) - but I'm sure nothing short of the Mexican president going to Home Depot and buying the supplies himself will painted as Trump backing off.
His comments were that the wall WILL be built and that Mexico WILL pay for it. 100%. That is definitive. His comments are now suggesting that Mexico might pay for it by being penalised in some manner, note: this does not address that this potential penalty payment may have an associated cost to the USA. His platform was, as has been said recently on this thread, that he is a man of his word, he is not one of these lying, obfuscating Washington career politicians. He can be trusted to come through with his promises. I would suggest that before we all start fellating him, let's see some follow on from what he stood for. Not what he said, what he stood for and what some on here have been frothing about. So far there is jack substance to back up his very loud sizzle.
It will be interesting to see, bearing in mind that those on here that were dismissive of, or anti Trump are still here arguing the toss after his signal triumph, how many of those are still on here blowing sunshine up his arse if he turns out to have feet of clay.
PS. i was going to say when but decided that would be arrogant
-
@gollum said in US Politics:
The issue re Trump is more he campaigned on Trust me, I'm not a polititian, I'm not a liar like those other guys, when I say I will do something I do it. 100%
No he didn't, that is just you and some others perceived his message. That statement shows that you still just don't get how and why Trump won.
Now to cover themselves his detractors expect everything be exactly how they expect not what he said or what his supporters expect. As someone else said, it is more than possible that he is going to make Mexico eventually but doesn't want to wait before starting. If he had waited people would be wailing on about him not doing as he promised.
His supporters are not interested in results not petty point scoring. -
Although it is amusing to see people set a stupidly high bar like 100% success in all policy, and then demand Trump be the first leader in political history to achieve it.
This just shows the same hubris and arrogance (just for you Cato) that meant they completely and utterly failed to understand the election. His supporters and middle voters expectations are all that matter. Not beltway analysts, mainstream media and left wingers.
-
Getting back to Wikileaks , I wonder if the leftards that have been defending it like Pilger the Putin fluffer will tie themselves in knots trying find a way to excuse this?
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11778298
-
@gollum said in US Politics:
You don't understand Trump supporters and you don't speak for them.
We knew and know full well there will be compromise.
We knew he was a salesman and prone to exaggeration - not like more honest Bernie.
But there is something deeper in him that we see. A strength and a businessman common sense. Not another fucking lawyer like Clinton or Obama.-The wall is being at least partially built and border security will improve. - good
-Criminal illegal immigrants will be deported and perhaps more - good
-Trump is taking a strong stand against jobs being shipped off - good
-It looks as if all the money hiding overseas will be coming back - good
-Taxes will be coming down - good
-With time, Obamacare will be given the chop - good
-The US will not be wholesale importing Syrian refugees - good
-China will be more closely scrutinized - good
-Relations look to be on the improve with Russia - goodLooks like a lot of winning to me.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@gollum said in US Politics:
You don't understand Trump supporters and you don't speak for them.
We knew and know full well there will be compromise.Frank, did you vote in the US election?
US Politics