She looks stressed the **** out. Her eyes literally look strained from trying to keep a straight face while presenting her alternative facts...

So which country will Trump invade? I mean is there any doubt that the American military won't be used to invade another country within the next 4 years? All you need are some "alternative facts" to justify a cause.

Dan Rather on facebook:

They did put out feelers for the returns during the campaign, believe it or not (I didn't either).

https://twitter.com/BenSpielberg/sta...30871025123330

He already told the CIA that maybe there will be another chance to take Iraq's oil.

Its possible--perhaps even probable--that Russia's goals all along have simply been to create chaos in the American system. Aid Trump in the election and then ensure that he is humiliated at every turn over things that won't lead to impeachment.

They partially accomplished their goal. They want to see western civilization burn. They just got step 1 with him being elected. He's unpredictably dangerous for us.

EDIT: I don't think US citizen realize how fragile their credibility already was on the world stage. The last thing they needed at this point is every allied country isolated. If that happens and it sure sound like it will, they will turn their money and energy with the other up-and-coming world powers.

It's pretty clear if you read news from other countries that the whole election process in the US this time around cost them a lot of credibility.

steve bannon's own admitted goal is to destroy the state.

it's becoming clear that the job of conway, spicer, and priebus is to completely destroy the current media paradigm and build a new model sympathetic to trump's agenda.

now if bannon is indeed following through on his expressed goal, the cabinet picks will likely end up either destroying the agencies they were appointed to represent or recreating them to further and/or implement an agenda. along these same lines repealing obamacare with no replacement would serve in creating massive unrest.

fwiw i don't think the (traditional) media is, like you said, buying anything hook line and sinker. i genuinely think they (minus fox) don't know how to react to what is going on. i believe going forward members of the media are going to have to decide between either being real journalists or following an approved corporate/state narrative.

and finally trump looks so in over his head that i believe something major will happen in the future that will be spun to legitimize him as president. i have no idea what it will be, but i do know that bannon cannot implement his agenda with an amateur; he'll need a strong figurehead.

Niche, but excellent.

I'm definitely biased but it does seem odd to have the sorts of outrage mentioned on the last couple pages from clinton supporters

Tax returns and business conflicts.... um you were supporting someone with a ton of shady business conflicts with the foundation.... as someone working for the government, not in the private sector. Try to be honest with yourselves as to how shady the foundation is/was and compare that to speculation as to what trump could realistically be up to with business conflicts. One has a track record of doing big business in the private sector and no track record of corruption as a politician vs a couple that used their political power as a government official and expected next president to do big business with the private sector. One is far more shady and even illegal. Maybe there was outrage here and i just did pick up on it. Then theres the obvious case of deleting and bleaching public records after a subpoena. Then theres the email arrangement in the first place. Again, maybe the outrage existed and i missed it but reading the current outrage on current topics seems way off balance

Of course clintons media accessibility wasn't much of a concern either. Outrage at the size of crowds at inauguration? Sounds serious. Its not like they lied about the wage gap, solid political favors for 10's of millions, or created a private server to conceal public records, or deleted those records under a subpoena. I get it you're concerned but the level of outrage seems completely off balance. I mean we even had obama involved in lying about his knowledge of the email situation as he campaigned for her and nobody seemed to care. It seems like a bunch of extremely shady stuff is acceptable when its your horse, but nonsense like crowd sizes and far less concerning things like tax returns are a big deal. Actually thats an understatement, youre making a yuge deal about it

None of that wall of text changes the fact that Trump needs to release his tax returns and that his interactions with media and willingness to tell out right lies are terrifying. " your candidate did it too!" doesn't make Trump's behavior any less despicable.

Terrifying?

Didn't seem terrifying to support someone doing things far more shady than failing to share tax returns and lying about crowd sizes

Oh hes not giving full cooperation with the media? I guess they will just stop covering him then? I guess he won't be under scrutiny? I guess the media didn't just finish releasing bogus piss stories? I guess the media coverage of the election was even close to reality? Maybe you should be a bit more outraged at the medias behaviour to match your trump pres sec outrage or your crowd size outrage

What illegal things did clinton do?

Do you have any proof she deleted anything she wasn't allowed to?

With dozens of congressional hearings and years of investigation nothing was proven. Maybe we should expend the same amount of energy on whether Trump does indulge in golden showers. I read from a very credible source that it's one of his favourite past time.

I suggest you look in to the clinton foundation. This isn't the time or place to go over it. Any rational or unbiased person should be deeply troubled with the information available.

As someone outraged at trumps failure to provide tax returns and exaggerate the crowd sizes i am not sure why you are asking the second question, im simply stating how totally off balance the outrage is




Saying nothing has been proven is totally wrong as seen in the vdeos above. Saying she hasnt been prosecuted is true. Saying she hasn't been prosecuted yet is also true

Again what youre dismisssive and defensive of vs outraged is totally off balance. Trump hasn't released his tax returns and that my bother you but he is being audited so i can't really se him getting away with anything that makes sense of your completely off balance outrage

He's been the precedent three days. I'm sure his list of terrifying things has just begun

Also, it's not that we think trump is doing illegal things. But with his tax returns you could see he isn't paying taxes but using giant NOLs. But the main concern is related party issues. Maybe he has a lot of dealings with certain people that he doesn't want the US taxpayers to know about.

It's pretty clear he doesn't want anyone to see them. So it's likely they would damage him in some way in the public eye.

So conflict of interest and business dealings are a big concern for you? Just think about the fact clinton supporters are deeply concerned at this via trumps tax returns vs the clintons incredible track record

And her delivery is pretty flat and insincere. She's both very fierce and very cold at the same time. The craziest thing is that I think very few in Washington are really loyal to Trump. She's not really buying in. Neither is Spicer. Trump's kids are loyal. I guess. Flynn is loyal. But he's nuts too. Yet Trump has maybe millions of voters who buy into his bull**** hook, line and sinker.

Clintons released their tax returns and everything their foundation does is public. That is how we know they did some dodgy things. Trump not willing to make his info public can only mean he is hiding worse. Now that he is elected there is no other explanation amymore.

Actually wiki exposed a bunch of shady stuff that wasn't clear in the tax returns

These are weak and defensive arguments for the totally off-balance outrage

Pretty sure there was an election surrounding this and one chap won. Not sure relitigating it here helps in holding the current administration to account.

Seems like deflection and obfuscation frankly. "If we could all play the you too game and just get mired in that for a bit longer, we'd all achieve so much more than looking at the facts of the day and commenting on those instead" doesn't seem particularly convincing to me.

Only thing of (albeit prosaic) insight you've said is that folk are a bit biased and that the shady stuff their own horse does is fine. Problem is you're horse is president and the other a rapidly diminishing footnote. It's a play that's going to wear thin pretty quick.

Juan, Trump got elected. Many people expect the POTUS to be subjected to scrutiny. hth

right and thats my point along with how silly the crowd size nonsense is
But not their candidate? Nobody is forcing you to defend and support hilary, just read the posts above, nevermind months of it. I can't say you are guilty of this but have a look around you. Yeah scrutinize trump but it gets weird when you support and defend hilary while your face melts off at the prospect of trump not releasing his tax returns even though hes being audited. Again, the placement of outrage from hilarys supporters and defenders

Scrutiny is a good thing and trump deserves it, im commenting on the hypocrisy based on the level of outrage. Again it seems way off balance. Crowd size gate seems like a great example